Touch-typable devices based on ambiguous codes and methods to design such devices

ABSTRACT

The design of typable devices, in particular, touch-typable devices embodying ambiguous codes, presents numerous ergonomic problems. Solutions for these problems are herein disclosed. This invention teaches methods for the selection of ambiguous codes from the classes of strongly-touch-typable ambiguous codes and substantially optimal ambiguous codes for touch-typable devices such as computers, telephones, pagers, personal digital assistants, smart cards, television set-top devices and other information appliances, given design constraints such as the size, shape, and computational capacity of the device, the typical uses of the device, and conventional constraints such as respect of alphabetic ordering or Qwerty ordering.

This application claims the benefit of Provisional Application No.60/111,665, filed Dec. 10, 1998.

FIELD OF INVENTION

This invention relates to the design of touch-typable devices, and theuse of touch-typable devices in computing and telecommunications, andmore particularly to touch-typable devices based on stronglytouch-typable ambiguous codes and substantially optimal ambiguous codes.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Since the invention of the typewriter more than 100 years ago, keyboardengineering has been an active field of research and development,resulting in many competing designs. With the growth of personalcomputing and telecommunications, the number of keyboard designs hasmultiplied as designers attempt to accommodate the wide variety ofconstraints and to exploit opportunities these new technologies present.Nonetheless, much of the variability of prior-art keyboard designs isnot due to this variety of constraints and opportunities. Rather, itresults from an incomplete appreciation on the part of keyboarddesigners of the constraints inherent in the problems they are trying tosolve. It also reflects the lack of general, effective methods foroptimizing with respect to these constraints. The present state of theart is thus represented by a plethora of partial solutions. These illsare cured by the keyboard design methods taught by the presentinvention. To illustrate the many facets of this invention, theoptimizing methods are applied to the design of a variety of deviceembodiments, each preferred as the substantially optimal solution of agiven set of design constraints.

The instant invention relates to touch-typable devices. Touch typing,like playing a musical instrument, is a manual skill which is difficultto learn. Once learned, it is difficult to modify the acquired motorpatterns. This difficulty places strong constraints on keyboard design.The familiar Qwerty keyboard (and its close variants such as the Azertykeyboard used in France) owes its dominance to ingraining andoverlearning of the motor patterns involved in touch typing. Thus, thewide established base of the Qwerty keyboard has created a barrier toentry to improved keyboards, such as the Dvorak keyboard. Indeed suchkeyboards have gathered but a limited user community. Due to its largenumber of keys, the Qwerty keyboard is unsuitable for handheld andsmaller typable devices. The advent of such devices opens a niche forkeyboard designers. A new design in this niche which becomes dominantwill likely conserve its dominant position even if more optimal designsappear later, due to the intrinsic tendency of repetitive motor patternsto become fixed. This prospect imposes an enormous burden ofresponsibility on keyboard designers to avoid saddling futuregenerations of keyboard users with suboptimal designs.

There are two main approaches in the prior art toward reducing thenumber of input means required to encode a given set of symbols 1)chording methods, in which a combination of input means are activated toencode each symbol, and 2) ambiguous codes, in which a combination ofsymbols are encoded by each input means. Chording methods have not metwith practical success since they have been heretofore difficult tolearn to operate, and few are willing to make the time investmentrequired. Thus, only ambiguous codes, or ambiguous codes in combinationwith chording methods, hold any real promise as a solution to thisproblem.

OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION

It is thus an object of the present invention to provide methods for thedesign of substantially optimal ambiguous codes for typable devices.

It is a further object of this invention to provide methods for thedesign of strongly-touch-typable ambiguous codes for typable devices.

A further object of this invention is to provide keyboards suitable fortouch typing on both full-sized and miniature keyboards.

A further object of this invention is to enable sending alphanumericmessages from ordinary phones or two-way pagers to other such devices,without human intervention, and thus inexpensively.

A further object of this invention is to provide touch-typable personaldigital assistants.

A further object of this invention is to provide keyboards which aretypable by the driver of a vehicle without unnecessarily distracting thedriver.

A further object of this invention is to provide for typablecommunication devices which are inexpensive to manufacture and work withstandard telephone communication systems.

A further object of some of the preferred embodiments of this inventionis to facilitate the transfer of typing skills of touch typists trainedon conventional keyboards to novel keyboards through partialconservation of the layout of the conventional keyboard in the layout ofthe novel keyboard.

A further object of this invention is to provide general methods toproduce ambiguous codes which have a substantially minimal lookup errorrate.

A further object of this invention is to provide general methods toproduce ambiguous codes which have a substantially minimal query errorrate.

A further object of this invention is to provide a device to reducetyping injuries.

A further object of this invention is to provide a handheld computingdevice which is twice foldable.

A further object of this invention is to provide a one-handed keypadsuitable for implementation on a handheld computer.

A further object of this invention is to provide a one- and two-handedkeypad suitable for implementation on a handheld computer or a desktopkeypad.

A further object of this invention is to provide keyboards which areQwerty-like.

A further object of this invention is to provide easily learnablechording keyboards.

A further object of this invention is to provide synergistic hybrids ofchording and ambiguous keyboards.

A further object of this invention is to provide a touch-typing-orientedquerying mechanism for typable devices embodying ambiguous codes.

A further object of this invention is to provide a touch-typing-orienteddisambiguation mode for typable devices embodying ambiguous codes.

A further object of this invention is to provide a hybridchording/ambiguous code keyboard fully compatible with the standardtelephone keyboard.

A further object of this invention is to provide ergonomic assignmentsof symbols to modes.

A further object of this invention is to provide a substantiallytransparent touch-typable interface for typable devices comprising touchscreens.

A further object of this invention is to provide optimization across aset of natural languages.

A further object of this invention is to provide a device typable usingthe one hand holding the device, with reduced scanning time.

Still further objects of this invention will be described in thedetailed description below.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The detailed description of the preferred embodiments of the presentinvention will be discussed with reference to the drawings, a briefdescription of which follows.

FIG. 1 shows an overview of the optimization considerations forproducing a typable device according to the present invention.

FIG. 2 shows a flowchart for the construction of devices based onstrongly touch typable ambiguous codes.

FIG. 3 shows a flowchart for the construction of ambiguous codessatisfying at least one constraint, and optimized with respect to theseconstraints.

FIG. 4 shows a flow chart of particular embodiment of the method of FIG.3 using a random search optimization method.

FIG. 5 shows the distribution of lookup error probability for randomlychosen ambiguous codes on several selected keys.

FIG. 6 shows the distribution of query probability for randomly chosenambiguous codes on several selected number of keys.

FIG. 7 shows a flow chart for directed random walk optimization.

FIG. 8 shows a flow chart of the construction of strongly touch-typableambiguous codes.

FIG. 9 plots lookup error rate vs. number of keys for randomly chosen,and substantially optimized ambiguous codes.

FIG. 10 plots query error rate vs. number of keys for randomly chosensubstantially optimized ambiguous codes.

FIG. 11 shows lookup error rate vs. query error rate for somesubstantially optimized ambiguous codes on a range of number of keys.

FIG. 12 shows a table relating levels of strong touch typability to thenumber of keys required to achieve that level, for several differentoptimization methods.

FIG. 13 shows a flow chart of the method for synthesizing encodingsymbols.

In order to help the reader appreciate the unity of the presentinvention in the face of the multitude of apparatus embodiments whichare required to clearly and distinctly point out the broad scope andvarious aspects of the invention, a table summarizing these embodimentsand their major features is shown in FIG. 14.

FIG. 15 shows a smart-card embodiment with 16 keys devoted to encodingof letter symbols.

FIG. 16 shows a smart-card embodiment with 9 keys devoted to encoding ofletter symbols.

FIG. 17 shows a keyboard embedded in a steering wheel.

FIG. 18 shows a telephone with a substantially optimal code on 10 keys.

FIG. 19 shows an example reduced-ambiguity alphabetically orderedambiguous code in application to a portable telephone.

FIG. 20 shows a Qwerty-like keyboard, optimized with respect to lookuperror rate and query error rate, while respecting the ordering ofletters on each row of the Qwerty keyboard.

FIG. 21 shows an alternate Qwerty-like keyboard.

FIG. 22 shows an ambiguous keyboard embodied in a standard numerickeypad layout.

FIG. 23 shows a n ergonomic touch-typing-oriented disambiguationmechanism.

FIG. 24 shows a flow chart for a method to allow queries to be answeredin a touch-typing oriented manner.

FIG. 25 shows a one-handed embodiment of a keyboard designed forconservation of typing skills between one-handed and two-handedkeyboards.

FIG. 26 shows a two-handed embodiment of a keyboard designed forconservation of typing skills between one-hand ed and two-handedkeyboards. In this case, the two-handed keyboard is weighted for maximumsimilarity in typing motions between the two keyboards.

FIG. 27 shows a two-handed embodiment of a keyboard designed forconservation of typing skills between one-handed and two-handedkeyboards. In this case, the two-handed keyboard is evenly weightedbetween the two hands.

FIG. 28 shows an integrated mouse/keyboard.

FIG. 29 shows a top view of a twice-foldable information appliance inthe unfolded state.

FIG. 30 shows a bottom view of a twice-foldable information appliance inthe unfolded state.

FIG. 31 shows a twice-foldable information appliance in the once-foldedstate, revealing an additional functionality.

FIG. 32 shows a twice-foldable information appliance in the twice-foldedstate, revealing yet another functionality.

FIG. 33 shows a twice-foldable information appliance in a detachedstate, allowing two-handed typing.

FIG. 34 shows a typical personal digital assistant with a touch screen.

FIG. 35 shows a typical personal digital assistant with a potentiallytransparent keyboard.

FIGS. 36A, B and C show three modes for a 16-key keyboard.

FIG. 37 shows a standard telephone layout.

FIG. 38 shows a hybrid chording/ambiguous code keyboard embodied in atelephone.

FIG. 39 shows the distribution of lookup error rates and query errorrates for all hybrid chording/ambiguous codes of a specified structure,compared to the lookup and query error rate of the standard ambiguouscode.

FIG. 40 shows a flow chart for the creation of multi-level stronglytouch-typable ambiguous codes.

FIG. 41 shows a flowchart for the creation of a specific embodiment of amulti-level strongly touchable ambiguous code.

FIG. 42 shows a typable device suitable for implementation of themulti-level ambiguous code of FIG. 41.

FIG. 43 shows the device of FIG. 42, operating to display the firstlevel of a multi-level ambiguous code.

FIG. 44 shows the second-level code of a multi-level ambiguous code.

FIG. 45 shows the device of FIG. 42 operating to display part of thesecond level code of a multi-level ambiguous code.

FIG. 46 shows the sequence of operating states of the device of FIG. 42while used in combination with a multi-level ambiguous code to type theword “think”.

FIG. 47, like FIG. 46, shows the operating states of the device of FIG.42 while used in combination with a multi-level ambiguous code to typethe word “think”. In this case, however, the operation of a visual cacheto reduce scan time is show as well.

FIG. 48 shows the operation of a unambiguous selector to select theunique alternate of a predicted letter, when there are two letters perkey.

FIG. 49 shows the structure of a general ambiguous code, mappingsequences of encoding symbols to sequences of decoding symbols.

FIG. 50 shows a max-2 to max-1 ambiguous code in which a sequence atmost of length 2 of encoding symbols maps to sequences of decodingsymbols of length 1.

FIG. 51 shows a max-2 to max-1 ambiguous code where the length-2sequences consist of a combining encoding symbol and a key-assignedencoding symbols; Decoding symbols are assigned to the same key as theencoding symbol with the corresponding index.

FIG. 52 shows a max-2 to max-1 ambiguous code, where the length-2sequences consist of a combining symbol and a key-assigned encodingsymbol, the decoding symbols are the letters a-z and the explicitlyselected letters, selected from the set of letters on each of the keysin the standard telephone keypad, are the letters c, e, h, l, n, s, t,and y.

FIG. 53 shows the maximally touch-typable region (shaded) in the lookuperror, query error plane.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Definitions and Basic Notions

This section collects definitions of words and concepts which will beused in the following detailed specification.

-   Language Given a set of symbols, one can construct sequences of    symbols, and assign probabilities to the sequences. The set of    symbols, sequences of symbols, and the probabilities assigned to the    sequences will be referred to here as a language. For clarity of    discussion, and without limiting the scope of this invention, the    languages we will refer to are written natural languages, such as    English, and though for concreteness we may refer to symbols as    “letters” or “punctuation”, it will be understood by those of    ordinary skill in the art that symbols in this discussion may be any    discrete unit of writing, including standard symbols such as Chinese    ideograms or invented symbols such as the name of the artist    formerly known as Prince.-   Keyboard/Input Means A keyboard is a component of a communications    and/or computing device which transforms physical movement by an    operator into symbol sequences. Keyboards comprise at least one    input means which is responsible for the transformation of some    subset of the physical motions operative to activate the keyboard    into some subset of symbol sequences.

The physical movement used to operate a keyboard is typically in theform of motion of fingers and/or thumb or of a hand-held stylus. Thisdefinition extends to other bodily motions, such as head, tongue, or eyemotions which might serve to signal a choice of symbol from thekeyboard. A device comprising a keyboard according to this definitionwill be referred to as a typable device.

By “typable device” we understand not just the physical devicecontaining the keyboard, but the entire communication system in whichthis typable device is embedded, the limits of that system defined bydependence on the underlying ambiguous coding scheme. In the case of atypable device in which input symbols appear directly on a display whichis physically part of the typable device, the limits of the system areclear and defined by the physical perimeters of the device. In moregeneral cases, in which for example the typable device includes atelephone handset sending information to a central computer, the centralcomputer begin responsible for decoding or otherwise acting on thetextual information communicated from the handset, then the “typabledevice” must be understood to include the central computer, asconfigured to operate in the required manner by software built in viewof the teachings of this invention.

It will be appreciated that each of the at least one input meanscomprised in a keyboard can take a wide variety of physicalmanifestations. The essential feature of an input means is that itpermits an operator to select a subset from the set of symbols to beencoded by the keyboard. With this appreciation, and in order toincrease the readability of this present specification, the word “key”will often be used interchangeably with the words “input means”.

-   Typing is the process of sequentially selecting at least one input    means in order to select sequences of subsets of symbols from the    set of symbols which can be encoded by the keyboard. It is to be    appreciated that well-known handwriting recognition software permits    a kind of typing in which the input means translates a collection of    drawing motions into the selection of a subset of a set of symbols.-   Touch typing is the process by which the symbol sequences are    generated from the keyboard using only or predominately kinesthetic    rather than visual or auditory feedback.-   Strongly correlated symbols and symbol sequences It is well known    that different letters appear in words with different frequencies.    For instance, in the previous sentence, the letter “e” appeared 11    times, while the letter “z” did not appear at all. This is also true    of pairs of letters, triples of letters, and so on. It is a related    fact that words do not all occur with the same frequency. The    3-letter word “the” is very common in English, while the 3-letter    word “zap” is rather uncommon. These statistical irregularities can    be used in the design of ambiguous codes. Indeed, statistical    irregularities have been exploited in keyboard design at least since    the invention of Qwerty.

We are particularly concerned with symbols and symbol sequences whosedistribution in typical samples of text is substantially stronglycorrelated with the distribution of other symbols or symbol sequences,such symbols will be called strongly correlated symbols. For example,the symbol “.” often used in English and other languages to indicate theend of a sentence may be a strongly correlated symbol since thedistribution of sentence length is not random in typical text. InHebrew, the symbol “.” is correlated as well with particular lettersymbols since Hebrew uses a different symbol for some letters occurringat the end of a word, and ends of sentences are correlated with ends ofwords.

-   Reference Statistics The reference statistics on symbols sequences    used to measure the correlation between symbols are typically    estimated by analysis of a reference corpus. A reference corpus is a    large collection of text chosen to represent some aspect of    language. As is well known to linguists, there are significant,    fundamental problems in constructing corpora to represent general    features of a language, as opposed to features pertaining to    particular classes of text or particular types of writers. These    problems are beyond the scope of the present invention. Here we    refer throughout to a set of reference statistics gleaned from    analysis of the British National Corpus, one of the largest corpora    existing at the present time for analysis of English. Choosing a    corpus is a necessary step toward gathering results which permit    various methods and embodiments to be compared. Nothing in this    particular choice should be construed as limiting the scope of this    invention. In particular, the choice of a corpus of English language    texts is an arbitrary choice. The same analysis could be performed    for any other written natural language.-   Encodings and Decodings In the United States, the keys on a    telephone keypad are often labeled with letters as well as numbers,    typically with the key corresponding to the number 2 also    corresponding to the letters a, b, and c, the key corresponding to    the number 3 also corresponding to the letters d, e, and f, and so    on in the standard ordering of letters in English.

Thus, the sequence of key presses associated to the digit sequence 233also corresponds to the letter sequences add, bee, and bed, all of whichare English words, as well as various meaningless letter sequences suchas cff. Here, a sequence is considered to have meaning if it appears ina reference list of meaningful sequences. Thus all of these lettersequences, meaningful or not, are associated with the same digitsequence. We will say that the sequence of key presses 233 is anencoding and the sequences add, bee bed, eff and so on are decodings ofthe encoding 233. When no confusion will arise, “decodings” may be usedto mean “meaningful decodings”. The set of symbols used in decodings, inthis example, letters in the alphabet, will be referred to as decodingsymbols, or simply symbols if no confusion will arise, and the set ofsymbols used in encodings, in this example, digits, will be referred toas encoding symbols.

-   Ambiguous codes Ambiguous codes as such are well known in the art.    On the standard telephone keypad used in the United States, there    are 12 keys, 10 of which encode a digit, and several of these,    typically 8, encode in addition 3 or 4 letters of the alphabet,    arranged in alphabetic order. These assignments produce an ambiguous    code which we will call the standard ambiguous code. This code is    abc def ghi jkl mno pqrs tuv wxyz.

Since several letters are encoded on each key, some method ofdisambiguation must be used to decide which of the several letters isintended by the operator. In typical applications, such as a voiceresponse system, the intended letter is found by comparing the inputsequence with a list of stored responses. In the event that several ofthe stored responses correspond to the input sequence, the user ispresented with a list of these responses, from which he or she mustchoose. The order in which these choices are presented may be arbitrary,or may depend on the frequency by which each response is the correctresponse, with the responses presented in decreasing order of frequency.

-   Standard keyboards. There are essentially three standard keyboards    in wide use: the Qwerty keyboard and its close variants, the 12-key    telephone keypad and the typically 17-key numeric keypad and its    close variants. It is a unique advantage of this invention to    provide keying methods useful both on the standard telephone and    numeric keypads, as well as on a specially designed keypads    disclosed here in.-   Strong touch typability A device with fixed symbol assignments is a    device in which the assignment of symbols to keys is essentially    fixed; only relative to such a device can a typist develop physical    reflexes for encoding particular symbols using particular motor    patterns. We will say that a typable device is strongly touch    typable if it 1) has fixed symbol assignments, 2) is based on an    amoiguous code, and yet 3) such that in a normal mode of operation,    a touch typist can use the typable device to produce text at an    acceptable level of accuracy.

Strong touch typability is a matter of degree; it is a measure of touchtypability which depends on a host of factors, some pertaining to theindividual typists, some pertaining to the uses to which the typabledevice will be typically put, and some pertaining to the structure ofthe typable device it self. Even for a given typist, a given typabledevice may be sufficiently strongly touch typable for some typing tasks,but not for others.

It is to be appreciated that the accuracy of the text produced depend ona number of factors, including:

-   -   the disambiguation means,    -   the context of the use of the machine, for instance while        driving or while sitting at a desk,    -   the kind of text to be typed, which determines in part the level        of accuracy required,    -   the reference statistics,    -   the skill of the individual typist,    -   individual preferences, and    -   the means by which the attention of toe user is drawn to the        disambiguation mechanism (for instance, a voice-synthesis        mechanism which speaks the words or words in a query to the user        may or may not be more distracting than a bell or a flashing        light).

Though strong touch typability, like temperature, is a mailer of adegree, it is, like temperature, perfectly well-defined. The strongtouch typability of a typable device can be quantitatively measured,with respect to any user or group of users, once these various factorsare fixed, using standard experimental protocols, well-known to thoseskilled in the art. Furthermore, two aspects of strong touch typabilitycan be measured directly from an ambiguous code: lookup error and queryerror. Thus, numerical values of strong touch typability can be assignedwithout any direct reference to a population of users, but only withreference to the ambiguous code in question.

Like temperature, there is a lower bound to strong touch-typability. Itis clear that a device which requires user intervention after every wordor even after every three words in order to disambiguate cannot beconsidered strongly touch-typable with respect to any typist engaged inany task. The lower bound of strong touch typability can be expressed interms of continuity of attention. If a user's attention must besubstantially continually focused on the operation of the disambiguationmechanism to produce acceptable text then the device is not stronglytouch typable.

The practical lower bound of strong touch typability pertains to a userof average skill in the art of touch typing, and is higher than thetheoretical lower bound just described. In order to bring numerical aswell as conceptual precision and definiteness to the inventive notion ofstrong touch typability, numerical values are assigned to strong touchtypability in terms of values of lookup error and query error. Thisnumerical characterization serves to further distinctly point out thedifferences between the inventive methods and devices of the presentdisclosure and all prior art methods and devices.

A strongly touch typable ambiguous code is an ambiguous code on whichstrongly touch typable devices may be based.

-   Feedback Devices In devices which permit the user to intervene at    various points in the decoding of symbol sequences generated using    ambiguous codes, some manner of sensory feedback to the user is    required. Typically, this feedback will be in the form of a    graphical representation of symbols, however, feedback could take    many forms, such as auditory, tactile, or even olfactory or    gustatory.-   Constraints Design of keyboards implementing ambiguous codes    involves satisfying many constraints. These may include reduction of    lookup error rate, reduction of query error rate, selection of a    number of keys consistent with the size of the desired keyboard,    compatibility with existing keyboards such as the Qwerty keyboard,    phone keypad, or numeric keypad, regularity of partition structure,    anatomic fidelity, conservation of conventional gestures,    learnability, minimal mode-changing key use, partition structure,    compatibility between one- and two-handed typing, and conservation    of conventions such as alphabetic ordering. Other constraints    include: the ergonomics of disambiguation mechanisms, the ergonomics    of the encoding of weakly correlated symbols, look-and-feel, and    availability of computing resources at the sending and receiving    ends of a communication system utilizing ambiguous codes.-   Lookup Error measures the error committed by a disambiguation    mechanism which disambiguates by systematically selecting the    most-probable (meaningful) decoding from the set of possible    decodings of an ambiguous sequence. Thus, the lookup error rate of a    code is the sum, over all possible decodings which are not the most    probable decoding of an ambiguous sequence, of the reference    probability of the possible decodings. In the case of word-based    disambiguation, these sequences begin and end with a “space” symbol,    that is, are words. Lookup error is the probability that the    most-likely decoding is not the correct one. The lookup error is    conveniently expressed as a rate, the lookup error rate, in units of    words per lookup error. The lookup error rate is the reciprocal of    the lookup error probability.-   Query error is the sum, over all (meaningful) decodings which are    not unique (meaningful) decodings, of the reference probability of    said decodings. This gives the probability that a given word will    have more than one meaningful decoding, and therefore a query must    be made of the user as to decide which of these decodings to use.    The reciprocal of the query error is the query error rate, expressed    in units of words per query. The query error rate gives the average    number of words entered between queries.-   Substantial Optimality A code will be said to be substantially    optimal with respect to a property if it is among the best codes    with respect to that property given other constraints imposed on the    code. For example, a code on 20 keys may have a lower value of the    lookup error rate than a code on 2 keys, and yet the code on 2 keys    may be substantially optimal with respect to the lookup error rate    given the constraint that the code be on 2 keys. Substantially    optimal constrained codes will be defined as codes which are    simultaneously substantially optimal with respect to each of a    collection of constraints. Such constraints include but are not    limited to key number, lookup error rate and query error rate. For    these three constraints, pairs of constraints are correlated. Lookup    error rates tends to increase with query error rate, and both lookup    error and query error rates tend to increase as key number    decreases. The best value possible for a given constraint when this    given constraint is the sole optimization constraint may be better    than the best possible value obtainable when some other constraint    must be optimized as well. Thus, the constraints relevant to a given    design must be decided upon and their importance weighted as an    initial step of the optimization methods taught by this invention.

It is to be emphasized that the optimality of an ambiguous code cannotbe discussed in the absolute, but must be evaluated relative to a set ofreference statistics for the language to be encoded. Indeed, given anyambiguous code, it is possible to construct a set of statistics suchthat code is optimal with respect to the constructed statistics.

Given a set of reference statistics, an estimate of the optimality of agiven code can be obtained from experiments comprising the generation ofrandom codes, as well be discussed in more detail below.

-   Disambiguation Methods Substantial optimality for ambiguous codes is    well defined only in reference to a chosen disambiguation method. A    code which is substantially optimal with respect to one    disambiguation method may not be substantially optimal with respect    to another method of disambiguation.

At least two disambiguation methods are well known in the art. These areword-based and context-based disambiguation. In word-baseddisambiguation, a list of words along with their probabilities is usedto choose among alternate decodings of a given encoding in the ambiguouscode. For instance, all words in the list which are meaningful decodingsof a given encoding may be compared, and the word with the largestprobability selected. Block-based disambiguation is similar, except thatthe list contains fragments of text up to some size, along with theprobability of the fragments.

Both word-based and context-based disambiguation methods are specialcases of a more general framework, which we will call sequence-baseddisambiguation, in which a database of sequences of encoding symbols andof decoding symbols is associated with a probability, and disambiguationis effected by reference to this database. It is to be noted that the“space” symbol which defines word boundaries in languages such asEnglish is for the purposes of this discussion no different from anyother unambiguous symbol. One can define a list of sequences andsequence probabilities in which said sequences include the “space”symbol, and thus extend beyond word boundaries. One can go further anddefine sequences which include a wildcard symbol and thus define listsof sequences which contain arbitrary subsequences, which subsequencesmay or may not correspond to words in the language. In this way,arbitrarily complex representations of a language can be built up, andcan be used in a disambiguation method. For instance, syntactic andsemantic relationships between subsequences can be brought in to resolveconflicts between possible interpretations in terms of decoding symbolsof an ambiguously coded sequence of encoding symbols. For clarity, wefocus this specification on well-known word-based disambiguation, unlessotherwise specified. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the artthat the methods taught by this invention do not depend on word-baseddisambiguation; any other disambiguation method can be used.

-   Partitions A partition of an integer n is a set of integers such    that the sum of the elements of the set is equal to n. Typically, a    given integer admits many partitions, e.g. the integer 5 has the    partition 3:2, but also the partition 2:2:1. Algorithms for    generating all the partitions of an integer are well known to those    skilled in the art. Most prior art codes use an even-as-possible    partition. That is, a partition in which, to the extent possible    given the number of keys in relation to the number of letters to be    encoded, the number of letters per key is the same. As will be    further expanded below, this choice is a sensible choice with    respect to some constraints, it may be sub-optimal with respect to    others.

There are two genera of ambiguous codes for which exclusive rights areherein claimed. These are 1) strongly touch-typable ambiguous codes, and2) substantially optimal ambiguous codes. Ambiguous codes may besubstantially optimal but not strongly touch typable, strongly touchtypable but not substantially optimal, neither substantially optimal norstrongly touch typable, or both substantially optimal and strongly touchtypable.

The disclosure begins by pointing out how to make ambiguous codes inboth of these genera, and identifying whether a code is contained ineither of the genera. It then explains how to use codes in both of thesegenera to make typable devices, and how these codes may be used to solvevarious design problems confronting the designer of typable devices.

The best mode for practicing this invention depends on the constellationof design constraints which are to be optimized according to theteachings of the invention. Thus, several particular, practicallyrelevant and useful, situations are chosen to illustrate the range ofthe methods and devices taught by the present invention.

The range of machines which can be built by persons skilled in the artaccording to the teachings of this invention extends considerably beyondthe specifics of the preferred embodiments presented herein. Variousextreme or particular cases of design constraints are solved in theseembodiments. Given the teachings embodied in these cases, it will beclear to one skilled in the art how to combine features appropriately inorder to solve intermediate or hybrid design problems.

One embodiment is optimized with respect to lookup error rateexclusively. This embodiment is designed for a machine with limitedmemory and computing power, such as a smart card. With such a machine,computing resources may not be available to support a complex queryingmechanism for user activation of disambiguation.

Thus this machine uses one of the simplest possible disambiguationmechanisms, which comprises systematic selection of the most-probabledecoding symbol sequence corresponding to any given encoding symbolsequence.

Another embodiment is optimized with respect to query error rateexclusively. This embodiment is designed for use by the driver of avehicle, such as an automobile. Though computing power may be availableto support a complex querying mechanism, use of such mechanism should bekept to a minimum, so as to distract the driver as little as possiblefrom driving.

A next embodiment provides a phone keypad optimized with respect to bothlookup error rate and query error rate, and which is compatible with thelayout of standard telephone keypads.

Another embodiment is optimized with respect to the constraint ofconservation of a convention-:

-   preservation of alphabetic order.-   Letters are arranged on the standard touch-tone keypad in alphabetic    order. It is possible to preserve the alphabetic ordering of the    conventional telephone keypad and yet reduce lookup and query error    rates by optimizing over partitions.

Optimization over partitions leads to an additional embodiment in whichkeyboards with substantially optimal query and lookup error areexhibited which preserve as well as possible the conventional Qwertykeyboard arrangement.

A further embodiment illustrating the design of keyboards whichcorrespond as well as possible to conventional designs is a keyboardbased on an ambiguous code which conserves the key layout and numericlabels of a numeric keypad.

For many applications, a keyboard which can be ergonomically operated inboth an ambiguous and a non-ambiguous fashion is desired. To this end,it is preferable to chose ambiguous codes on a number of keys whichnearly divides the number of symbols to be encoded, permitting a nearlyeven-as-possible partition of symbols with respect to keys A number ofkeys equal to ½ the number of symbols is particularly preferred. Thedesirable consequences of this preferred choice are exhibited by thisnext embodiment.

Another embodiment shows how keyboards can be optimized forcross-platform compatibility. In this embodiment two keyboards, aone-handed keyboard and a two-handed keyboard, are designed to beoperated in potentially rapid alteration, in such a way thattouch-typing motions used to operate one of the keyboards transferseamlessly to touch-typing motions used to operate the other keyboard.This keyboard has the additional advantage of having the potential toreduce typing injuries, as well as other objects and advantages, as willbe described in the detailed specification.

The above-mentioned embodiments taken together show that differentkeyboard uses imply different kinds of optimality, which, since a givenuser may need keyboards for several different uses, in turn implies thatmechanisms must be provided for several different solutions to co-existin a single device. A surprising solution to this problem, made possibleby the small typable device sizes achievable with ambiguous codes, isthe twice-foldable personal digital assistant described in thisembodiment.

The embodiments discussed up to this point involve both hardware andsoftware specification. However, it is possible to achieve many of theobjects of this invention using a purely, or predominantly, softwaresolution. An example software solution is worked out in detail to showhow specifics of existing hardware can be incorporated using appropriatesoftware to achieve some of the objects of this invention.

A final set of embodiments synergistically unites, for the first time,two alternative approaches to producing keyboards with a small number ofkeys: chording methods and ambiguous-code methods.

First it is shown that by ergonomic construction of chording patterns,coupled with optimization of lookup error rate and query error rate, anambiguous code on n keys can be made to behave like an ambiguous code onm substantially larger than n keys. When, in particular, this method isapplied to the standard ambiguous code, the 8 letter keys of thestandard ambiguous code gain the properties of substantially optimalcodes without chording on 13 keys. Comments on how to extend ambiguouscode creation discussed throughout with reference to English can beextended to other languages. For concreteness, this discussion iscarried out with respect to this embodiment, but the comments applygenerally to all embodiments.

Second, it is shown that combining a divide and conquer method with themethods exemplified by the previous embodiment, the number of inputmeans can be further reduced, in this example, 4 input means are used tooperate an ambiguous encoding with 16 elements. The number 4 is chosenso that a handheld device embodying this code can be operated using thefingers and thumb of the hand holding the device.

-   Operational overview of a strongly touch typable device. FIG. 2    shows an operational overview of a strongly touch typable device    based on an ambiguous code. Such a device possesses input means, the    activation of which by a user 140 causes sequences of encoding    symbols to be generated 141. A strongly touch typable ambiguous    code, by referencing a database of sequences of encoding symbols    paired to sequences of decoding symbols, is used to map these    sequences of encoding symbols to sequences of decoding symbols in    step 142. These sequences of encoding symbols may then be    selectively output, either on a display for direct observation by    the user of the device, or in some electronic form for further    processing, transmission, or storage 142.

It should be pointed out that the ambiguous code of the device of FIG. 2might also satisfy other constraints in addition to strong touchtypability.

-   Construction of substantially optimal codes The methodological steps    to optimize an ambiguous code with respect to a set of constraints    are explained in reference to FIG. 3. In summary, the steps are as    follows:    -   2000 selecting a set of statistically correlated decoding        symbols to be represented in an ambiguous code, comprising the        sub steps of        -   2007 selecting a set of reference statistics,        -   2008 analyzing the statistical correlation of symbols            relative to the statistics selected in step 2007    -   2001 selecting a disambiguation method.    -   2002 selecting the number of encoding symbols.    -   2003 selecting the constraints with respect to which the code        should be        -   substantially optimal.    -   2004 weighting the importance of the constraints selected in        step 2003.    -   2005 selecting an optimization method.    -   2006 applying the optimization method selected in step 2005,        whereby substantially optimal ambiguous codes are produced.

It will be appreciated that the steps 2000 through 2003 might be appliedin any order, and that the application of one of these steps couldinfluence the choices at other of these steps. Details regarding theapplication of these steps will now be explained.

Step 2000 selecting a set of statistically correlated symbols to berepresented in an ambiguous code. This step is comprised of the substepsof 2007 selecting a set of reference statistics, and 2008 analyzing thestatistical correlation of symbols relative to the statistics selectedin step 2007. The goal of these steps is to identify those symbols whichare capable of being represented ambiguously. All disambiguation methodswork by exploiting correlations between symbols to make predictionsabout which sequence of decoding symbols should be associated with agiven sequence of encoding symbols. If a decoding symbol is distributedrandomly throughout all texts to be encoded, then it cannot berepresented in an ambiguous code, since no predictions can be made abouta randomly distributed symbol. Typically, for any natural language, thesymbols used to encode that language (for instance, letters in the caseof English, ideograms in the case of Chinese) are sufficientlystatistically correlated that an effective ambiguous code for thesesymbols can be designed. There may be other symbols, such as punctuationsymbols, which are significantly statistically correlated with eachother, and with the letters or ideograms used to write the language. Thefine details of steps 2007 and 2008 depend on the natural language to berepresented. Analysis of statistical correlation of symbols used inwritten natural language is a well-known art to linguists.

Step 2001, selecting a disambiguation method. As has already beenmentioned, there are currently at least two well-know methods ofdisambiguation, context-based and word-based disambiguation. Both ofthese methods use statistical context of symbols to make predictionsabout which sequence of decoding symbols to set in correspondence with agiven sequence of encoding symbols. Both context-based and word-basedmethods can be augmented though use of higher-level information about alanguage, such as its syntax and semantics. The goal of this presentmethod is to construct an ambiguous code such that, relative to theselected disambiguation method, optimal selection of a decoding sequenceto correspond to each encoding sequence. Therefore, the details of theselected disambiguation method can influence the detailed nature of theambiguous code to be thus designed. This method will be illustrated withrespect to the selection of word-based disambiguation as thedisambiguation method, though other disambiguation methods will also bediscussed.

Step 2002, selecting the number of encoding symbols. The selection ofthe number of encoding symbols is crucial to the design of a typabledevice based on ambiguous codes. This selection is made in view of manyfactors, including the size of the typable device and the acceptablelevel of ambiguity. These factors and their interplay are best explainedin reference to concrete examples; such examples are taken up later inthis disclosure.

Step 2003, selecting the constraints with respect to which the codeshould be substantially optimal. An essential aspect of this inventionis the discovery and definition of several constraints which determinethe quality of a typable device based on ambiguous codes. Theseconstraints include strong touch typability, lookup rate, query errorrate, anatomic fidelity, conservation of conventional gestures,conservation of conventional layouts, partition structure,cross-platform compatibility, regularity of layout, and scan rate.Depending on the application, one or more of these constraints may berelevant to the design of a typable device.

Step 2004, weighting the importance of the constraints selected in step2003. When more than one constraint is relevant to the design of atypable device, some weighting of the importance of these constraintsmust be decided upon. It is rarely the case that the same optimum withrespect to a given constraint can be optimized as well in isolation aswhen it is optimized also with respect to other constraints.

Step 2005, selecting an optimization method. Two optimization methodswill be discussed in more detail below, random selection, and directedrandom walk. of the two, random selection is typically easier toimplement, yet directed random walk produces better codes. These twomethods are representative of a large class of methods which might beappropriate for the design of a given typable device. In some cases, forinstance the first chording/ambiguous code device considered below, thenumber of codes to be examined is small enough that all of them can bechecked exhaustively.

Step 2006, applying the optimization method selected in step 2005,whereby substantially optimal ambiguous codes are produced. Regardlessof the optimization method selected in step 2005, some skill must beused when applying the method to produce substantially optimal ambiguouscodes. In particular, when an optimum is required with respect toseveral constraints at once, it is preferable to consider eachconstraint first in isolation, whereby an estimate can be made of thecode quality ultimately achievable. This estimate can be invaluable forfine-tuning the optimization process, as will be discussed in moredetail below.

-   Random Search The basic method for finding a code with good    properties is to choose codes at random, test their properties, and    select those which have the best properties. Exhaustive enumeration,    in which all codes in the candidate set are tested, is typically not    a viable option since the number of codes is too large to be tested    in any reasonable amount of computer time.

Random search provides a benchmark by which the utility of other methodsof code selection can be measured. Suppose that a set of constraints,and a weighting on those constraints is given. One can estimate thesubstantial optimality of a first ambiguous code with respect to thoseconstraints and those weightings by generating additional ambiguouscodes at random. If in a small number of random trials it is possible tofind a code with equal or better values with respect to the givenconstraint than the first code, then that first code is notsubstantially optimal.

If, on the other hand, it can be shown that a substantially large numberof random trials is required to produce a code with values better thanor equal to the first code, or that on better code exists, then thefirst code is substantially optimal.

With reference to FIG. 4 we state in detail a method for rejecting thehypothesis that a candidate ambiguous code is substantially optimal. Insummary, the steps are:

-   -   3000 determining a set of relevant constraints which define an        appropriate set of codes which contains the candidate code.    -   3001 determining the set of constraints with respect to which        the candidate code may be substantially optimal.    -   3002 randomly selecting a subset of codes from the set        determined in step 3001.    -   3003 evaluating each of the codes selected in step 3002 with        respect to each of the constraints determined in step 3001.    -   3004 comparing the values of the candidate code with respect to        the constraints selected in step 3001 with the values found in        step 3003. If any of the values found in step 3003 are more        optimal than the values of the candidate code, then the        hypothesis that the candidate code is substantially optimal can        be rejected.        Details concerning these steps:

Step 3000, determining a set of relevant constraints which define anappropriate set of codes which contains the candidate code. The set withrespect to which the substantial optimality of a candidate code is to beevaluated must be appropriately defined. Some of the potentiallyrelevant constraints are: number of encoding symbols, partitionstructure, and admission of a specified ordering, such as alphabeticordering. Each of these constraints limits the set of codes to which thecandidate code is appropriately compared to.

Step 3001, determining the set of constraints with respect to which thecandidate code may be substantially optimal. Some of the constraintswhich might be relevant for the analysis of the candidate code are:lookup error rate, query error rate, admission of a specified ordering,such as alphabetic ordering, admission of a regular layout, and anatomicfidelity.

Once steps 3000 and 3001 are performed, a distribution of codeproperties over a set is defined, and this distribution can be sampledrandomly. FIG. 5 presents an example in which sets of codes are definedas having 1) an even-as-possible partition, and 2) a specified number ofencoding symbols, where the specified number is 7, 9, 11, and 13. Thisdefinition completes step 3000. Then it is determined that lookup erroris the sole relevant constraint. This determination completes step 3001.Together, these steps determine a distribution, the shape of which canbe determined by random sampling, steps 3002 and 3003. In the FIG. 5,5000 codes from each distribution are selected, completing step 3002,and the lookup error of each is measured, completing step 3003. The dataare presented as percent lookup error (the reciprocal of lookup errorrate) vs. the number of codes with the given percent lookup error. It isseen that the distributions become increasing strongly peaked as thenumber of keys increases. If the process is repeated but with queryerror replacing lookup error, we obtain the data shown in FIG. 6.

To illustrate step 3004, a candidate code whose substantial optimalityto be tested is selected. This code is the 14-key code pn gt cr zk wj ae hi so ud xf ym vl qb proposed by [1]. The lookup error of this coderelative to our reference statistics is 105 words/lookup error.Proceeding as above, we determine that 14-key code with aneven-as-possible partition with lookup error equal to or better thanthat of the candidate code can be found in 7 random trials on average.If we repeat the process, except for using query error rate instead oflookup error rate as the relevant measure, we find that a code withbetter query error rate than the candidate code (4 words/query) will befound in 3 out of 4 random trials on average. Thus the ambiguous code of[1] is not substantially optimal either with respect to lookup errorrate, or with respect to query error rate. Indeed, with respect to queryerror rate, most codes are better than the given code.

As a rule of thumb, if a code has not been explicitly optimized withrespect to a constraint, then it is likely that it is not substantiallyoptimal with respect to that constraint, as measured with respect to anyreasonable set of language statistics.

Directed Random Walk

Directed random walk is an iterative optimization method wherein, ateach step, a previously best code is used as a seed for generating newcodes, one or more of which may be better than the best previouslyfound. As the process is iterated, better and better codes are thusfound. The procedure will first be explained intuitively, and then moreformally.

In the present context, optimization of ambiguous codes with respect toone or more constraints, we assume no detailed knowledge of thestructure of the space to be searched. In the absence of such knowledge,one is blind of foresight as to which direction to move to best continuethe search. Thus, the safest procedure to take small as possible stepsin as many as possible directions, and refrain from moving until stepsin each of these as many as possible directions have been evaluated andcompared. As an accumulation of small steps may lead a searcher into acul-de-sac, any such search should be augmented with a “restart”procedure which allows the search step back out of unpromising orblocked avenues.

More formally, the problem is to take minimal steps though the space ofambiguous codes and direct these steps though that space toward thedesired codes. According to the teachings of this invention,substantially minimal steps in space of ambiguous codes correspond tosingle pairwise permutations of assignments of decoding symbols toencoding symbols. At each step of the optimization method, it isdesirable to test as many pairwise permutations as possible, preferablyall possible pairwise permutations. The step is completed by choosingthe pairwise permutation which gives the largest improvement in theproperty to be thereby optimized. If there is no largest improvement,then one of the pairwise permutations is chosen at random.

In reference to FIG. 7, the steps of the method are as follows:

-   -   4000 choosing a starting code from the set of candidate codes.    -   4001 generating new codes from the starting code by perturbation        of the starting code, preferably, by pairwise permutations of        the assignment of symbols to keys, preferably all possible        pairwise permutations.    -   4002 measuring the properties of the codes thus generated.    -   4003 checking if a stopping criterion has been reached, such as        a criterion of limited further improvement.    -   4004 outputting the best code, if the stopping criterion has        been reached.    -   4005 if the stopping criterion has not been reached, checking to        see if the set of codes generated by perturbation of the current        starting code contain a code better than the current best code.    -   4006 if there is a code in the current set of codes better than        the current best, selecting the best of these as the new current        best.    -   4007 selecting a new starting code. If step 4005 yields YES,        selecting as new starting code the best code from the current        set, else, select a new starting code from the current set at        random. Upon completion, return to step 4001.

When there is but one constraint to be optimized, selection of the bestcode from the set of candidate codes is a simple matter of choosing thecode in the set which has the most optimal value of the constraint.However, when there are several constraints to be simultaneouslyoptimized there is but a partial ordering on the values of theconstraints, and it is not obvious how to select among these values inorder to best advance the optimization procedure.

One way to perform simultaneous optimization is to optimize with respectto each variable independently. Then, in cases of conflict, where thesimultaneous. optimum can not be achieved, this being the generic case,some weighting of the importance of each constraint must be established.And that relative weighting is part of the design constraints.

-   Construction of Strongly Touch-typable Codes In order to facilitate    the explanation of how to make and use strongly touch-typable    ambiguous codes, we will fix three increasingly strict levels of    strong touch typability.    -   Level A This level of touch typability is exemplified by a        casual, tolerant typist characterized in that he or she 1) types        20 words per minute and accepts distractions every 15 seconds,        that is, a query error rate of one query every 5 words on        average, and 2) accepts a 2 percent lookup error, that is, a        lookup error rate of one error every 50 words, or two and ½        minutes of typing.    -   Level B This level of touch typability is exemplified by a less        casual, less tolerant typist characterized in that he or she 1)        types 20 words per minute and accepts distractions every 30        seconds, that is, a query error rate of one query every 10 words        on average, and 2) accepts a 1 percent lookup error, that is, a        lookup error rate of one error every 100 words, or 5 minutes of        typing.    -   Level C This level of touch typability is exemplified by a        skilled typist characterized in that he or she 1) types 40 words        per minute and accepts distractions every 30 seconds, that is, a        query every 20 words on average, and 2) accepts a 0.5 percent        lookup error, that is, a lookup error every 200 words, or 5        minutes of typing.

With reference to FIG. 8, we point out that the method to constructstouchable codes comprises the following steps:

-   -   5000 Determining quantitative values of acceptable lookup error        rate and query error rate.    -   5001 Selecting an ambiguous code optimization method.    -   5002 Determining the minimal number of keys required such that        using said number of keys and the optimization method selected        in step 5001 it is possible to achieve the values of lookup        error rate and query error rate determined in step 5000.    -   5003 Determining the maximal number of keys allowable given the        design of the target typable device.    -   5004 Deciding if the design constraints are compatible. If the        number determined in step 5003 is greater than or equal to the        number determined in step 5002, then the design constraints are        compatible, otherwise they are not.    -   5005 If the design constraints are compatible, as determined in        step 5004, apply the optimization procedure selected in step        5001 to construct an appropriate strongly touch-typable        ambiguous code. If they are not compatible then the procedure        fails.

Details of this method are as follows:

Step 5000, Determining quantitative values of acceptable lookup errorrate and query error rate. This could be done by testing of anindividual or group of individuals, or by simply preselecting desiredvalues for lookup error rate and query error rate, for instance, byselecting a level of strong touch-typability as described above.

Step 5001, Selecting an ambiguous code optimization method. In referenceto the construction of substantially optimal ambiguous codes above, twooptimization methods were discussed: random search and directed randomwalk. Random search is less powerful than directed random walk, but maysuffice if the number of allowed keys is high enough, and the level ofdesired strong touch-typability is low enough. An ever weaker method,selection of a code in a single random trial, could be sufficient insome circumstances. To see this in more quantitative detail, someexperimental results are discussed in reference to FIGS. 9, 10 and 11.

In this experiment, 5000 ambiguous codes with an even-as-possiblepartition were selected at random from each of the sets of ambiguouscodes for 2-20 keys. In addition, for each number of keys 2-20, anoptimization run was performed using directed random walk, in each ofthree conditions, 1) optimization for lookup error rate only, 2)optimization for query error rate only, and 3) optimization for bothlookup error and query error rate, using a target value method. From thevalues of lookup error rate and query error rate calculated for therandomly selected codes, the following statistics were computed: bestvalue, worst value, average value, and median value. All thesestatistics are plotted in FIG. 9 for the lookup error rate, and in FIG.10 for the query error rate, together with the results of anoptimization run in which lookup error rate and query error rate,respectively, was the sole constraint optimized for. The results fromoptimization runs in which lookup error rate and query error rate weresimultaneously optimized are shown in FIG. 11. From all these data, adecision can be reached as to which optimization method to use. While itis always preferable to use the most powerful method at one's disposal,it may be that a less powerful method may be sufficient, for instance,any single, randomly selected code could meet specified constraints, ifthese constraints are sufficiently lax. This will be discussed furtherbelow.

Step 5002, Determining the minimal number of keys required such thatusing said number of keys and the optimization method selected in step5001 it is possible to achieve the values of lookup error rate and queryerror rate determined in step 5000.

With reference to the experimental results described above, and theselected levels of strong touch typability described above, one canconstruct a table giving the minimum number of keys required for each ofthe three levels of strong touch typability, and reference to the threetypes of optimization mentioned. This table is presented in FIG. 12.

Step 5003, Determining the maximal number of keys allowable given thedesign of the target typable device. Ambiguous codes will be typicallyused in small devices, and the number of keys will generally be acompromise between key size and total typable device size. In somecases, convention may enforce a key number, such as the convention ofusing 12 keys for a telephone keypad.

Step 5004, Deciding if the design constraints are compatible. If thenumber determined in step 5003 is greater than or equal to the numberdetermined in step 5002, then the design constraints are compatible,otherwise they are not.

As will be seen more clearly in the detailed specification of the deviceembodiments presented below, the number of keys permissible in a typabledevice can depend on many factors, and can be more or less rigidlydetermined by these factors.

Step 5005, If the design constraints are compatible, as determined instep 5004, apply the optimization procedure selected in step 5001 toconstruct an appropriate strongly touch-typable ambiguous code. If theyare not compatible then the procedure fails.

If the procedure fails then at least one of the following things musthappen:

A stronger optimization method is chosen.

The device design is modified to allow for more keys.

A lower value of strong touch typability is accepted.

The device is abandoned.

-   Smart Card on 9 to 16 letter keys Smart cards are substantially    credit-card sized devices containing computer components such as a    processor,memory and appropriate interfacing circuitry. Prior-art    smart cards may also contain a keyboard and a display. They are    currently used in applications such as security and banking, but    have many other possible uses. This embodiment shows how it is    possible to equip a smart-card-sized device with a touc-typable    keyboard, and thus vastly expand the range of applications which    these devices can serve. As a simple example, in banking and    security applications, smart card users must currently remember a    string of digits which is the password for the device. However, with    a typable smart card, easy-to-remember, though relatively long, pass    phrase in natural language could be used in the place of a    difficult-to-remember, albeit short, numeric password. Examples of    smart-card sized devices to which the teachings of this embodiment    could be applied include the personal digital assistants    manufactured by the Franklin Corporation and sold under the    trademark REX.

Given present technology, the small size of smart cards substantiallyforbids complex and power-consuming communication components fortransmission of data entered on the keyboard on the card. Thus, thissmart-card embodiment teaches a low-cost machine for ergonomically andefficiently sending messages using standard touch tones, and standardtouch-tone generators.

Most telephones have but 12 keys, each associated with a touch tone, inthe sense that activating each key causes a distinguished touch tone tobe emitted by the phone. However, the universal DTMF standard providesfor 16 touch tones, and the DTMF tone generator installed in mosttelephones is capable of generating all 16 of these tones. By exploitingthe additional tones, each of up to 16 keys can be assigned to a touchtone, and used to encode alphanumeric symbol sequences. Other thingsbeing equal, the larger the number of keys, the lower the ambiguity ofcodes associated to these keys. The teaching of this embodiment is thusto use substantially all of the 16 touch tones to encode alphanumericsequences. In this way, machinery for the communication of informationwith low-ambiguity codes can be produced using readily available,low-cost components.

This embodiment has the further objects of

-   -   providing a touch-typable keyboard for a smart-card-sized        device.    -   providing a method for simulating a set of encoding symbols        which is larger than the set of encoding symbols which can be        physically generated by a device    -   providing an example of a device in which lookup error is the        dominant constraint.    -   providing a keyboard/visual display device geometry which is        adapted for smart-card-sized devices.    -   providing a disambiguation mechanism which is operable using        very limited computer memory.    -   providing an example of a system wherein more than one        disambiguation mechanism may be operable, each adapted to local        computational capabilities. In this case, a first disambiguation        mechanism is used to provide feedback to the user, at the        sending end of a communication, while a second disambiguation        mechanism is used at the receiving end of the communication.

We will now discuss in detail the manner in which these objects areachieved by the present embodiment.

-   Strongly touch-typable keyboard Smart card devices are small, so    only a small number of substantially full-sized keys can be located    on them. If some of the area of the card is to be reserved for a    visual display device, then the area available for keys is further    reduced. The preferable compromise in number of keys between the    requirement of substantially full-sized keys for touch-typability,    and the requirement of a large number of keys to allow for    low-ambiguity codes, is in the range of 9-16 keys. Two possible    layouts for devices with a number of keys in this range are shown in    FIGS. 15 and 16. The arrangement and functionality of the keys and    their relationship to other components of the smart card will be    discussed in detail below.-   Synthesizing encoding symbols using encoding sequences with    meaningless decodings With reference to FIG. 13, let us divide the    set of decoding symbols into two subsets: 1) a core set, consisting    of symbols to be associated encoding symbols bearing a one-to-one    relationship with physical input means, and 2) an auxiliary set    consisting of symbols to be associated with encoding symbols bearing    a many-to-one relationship with physical input means (step 100).    Then, the method of synthesizing encoding symbols further comprises    the steps of    -   101 establishing a first, potentially ambiguous, code which        associates subsets of the core set with encoding symbols, said        encoding symbols bearing a one-to-one relationship with physical        signals which can be generated by the typable device for        physically representing encoding symbols,    -   102 identifying short sequences of encoding symbols which are        such that no possible decoding of the sequence of encoding        symbols forms part of a meaningful decoding.    -   103 establishing a second, potentially ambiguous, code as a        relationship between subsets of the auxiliary set of decoding        symbols with the short sequences of encoding symbols identified        in step 102.

For example, let us associate 16 encoding symbols with the 16 DTMFtones, so that said tones physically represent the encoding symbols. Thetones will be labeled (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, *,#,A,B,C,D). We will takeas the core set of symbols the letters [a-z], and associate them withthe physically representable encoding symbols via a first ambiguous codeas follow (0,aw), (1,bi), (2,cx), (3,d), (4,ej), (5,fo), (6,g), (7,hv),(8,ky), (9,1), (*,mu), (#,n), (A,pz), (B,qr), (C,s), (D,t), where thefirst element of each pair gives the encoding symbol, and the secondelement of each pair gives the decoding symbols associated to theencoding symbol. The auxiliary set of decoding symbols will be asingleton set consisting of the symbol “space”. Thus we synthesize oneencoding symbol to represent the one decoding symbol “space”. Acandidate sequence is A8A, which corresponds to the following decodingsequences (pkp pkz zkp zkz pyp pyz zyp zyz). None of these decodingsequences form part of any word in our reference list of meaningfulsequences, thus the encoding sequence A8A is a suitable sequence forrepresenting an element of the auxiliary set, and we form the pair (A8A,“space”) to represent the “space” symbol. The “space” symbol can then beassociated with an input means, which input means will cause thesequence of tones associated to A8A to be emitted each time said inputmeans is activated. On the receiving end, a decoding means willtransform the sequence A8A to the “space” symbol. Whether a given inputmeans is associated to a single physically representable encodingsymbol, or a synthesized encoding symbol, is entirely transparent to theuser. An arbitrarily large auxiliary set of decoding symbols can berepresented in this way. It will be appreciated that given the abovespecification, a programmer of ordinary skill would be easily capable ofcreating software to automatically generate any desired number ofsynthesized encoding symbols, given a set of reference statistics, and afirst (ambiguous) code for the core set of encoding symbols.

-   Providing a disambiguation mechanism which is operable using very    limited computer memory. The limited processing power and memory    capacity of present-generation smart cards puts a substantial    premium on low ambiguity in ambiguous code designs; little computing    power is available in the card to be devoted to disambiguation    machinery.

For any ambiguous code, most of the disambiguation effort, on the partof the computing hardware and software as well as on the part of theuser, is incurred in selecting which of the alternative decodings to anambiguous encoding should be selected. In view of the limited computingcapability of the smart card, querying for alternative decodings can beeliminated entirely. In the absence of querying, only the most probabledecoding for each encoding need be stored, for only the most-probabledecoding sequence will be output by the disambiguation mechanism wheneach encoding sequence is received. With this simplification, aparticularly compact form of the database can be obtained, e.g. in theform of a simple suffix tree. Since querying is eliminated sufficientvisual feedback can be provided using only a simple, low-powerrequirement display, for example, a single-line traveling banner displayrelated to the type of display used in pocket calculators or digitalwatches.

This method of disambiguation, in which only the most-probable decodingsequence is stored and output, we will refer to as simple lookupdisambiguation. Simple lookup disambiguation is only effectivelyoperable with ambiguous codes which are sufficiently strongly touchtypable. Thus a surprising consequence of strongly touch typable codesis that they permit effective operation of very simplifieddisambiguation mechanisms.

An example 16-key substantially optimal ambiguous code suitable forapplication in the present embodiment is the code aw bi cx d ej fo g hvky l mu n pz qr s t with lookup error rate 4043 words/lookup error, anda query error rate of 68 words/query, this code is shown is an examplelayout 51 on a 16-letter-key smart card in FIG. 15. This figure alsoreveals a display means 50 for displaying decodings of encoding symbolentered via the keyboard, and an auxiliary input means 51, which isthumb-activatable, and could be used to encode a variety of additionalsymbols and mode changes, as will be discussed more fully in referenceto other embodiments. Here it is to be especially noted that the displaymeans 50 is preferably placed in such a way that 1) both the letterinput means 51 and the thumb-actuated auxiliary input means 52 are in acomfortable position to be actuated by one hand (in this figure, theright hand), while, at the same time, allowing the keys to be as largeas possible, given the small size of the smart card, and also allowingthe screen to be comfortably and fully viewed in the frame formed by thethumb and the index finger of the hand actuating the input means 51 and52. This unique and preferred arrangement solves the problem of allowinga touch-typable keyboard and a large-as-possible display means tofunctionally co-exist on a smart card.

Since queries are not permitted at the sending end in this embodiment,this code was chosen by directed-random-walk optimization using lookuperror as the only constraint of optimality. It is to be noted thatlookup errors using this code will occur on average only once everyroughly 16 pages of typed text. Thus this code is suitable for accuratecommunication of substantially long messages, even in the absence of aquerying mechanism. If it were desirable to sacrifice some lookupoptimality at the sending end in order to reduce processing of queriesat the receiving end, an example alternate code optimized for both queryand lookup error is aw bu cx d ev fz go hj im ky l nq p r s t with alookup error rate of 2670 words/lookup and a query error rate of 101words/query. Choice of a code optimized both with respect to lookuperror rate and query error rate would be appropriate in at least twocircumstances, 1) if the smart card were in fact sufficiently powerfulto support a query mechanism, and/or 2) a query-based disambiguationmechanism would be used at the receiving end of communications initialedat the smart card. This latter might be the case, for instance, if theuser composed messages using a smart card, sent them to another computerover a phone line, and at some later moment performed a seconddisambiguation pass using a more powerful disambiguation mechanism.Indeed, the second disambiguation pass need not be performed by theperson who composed the message, but could be performed by a secondperson, for instance the first person's secretary.

In any case, the lookup error rate of this second code is stillextremely low, as compared, for instance, to the rate at which even veryskilled typists make typing errors, approximately 1 error every 100words. By any reasonable measure, both of these 16-letter-key codes mustbe considered strongly touch typable, as a typist typing 20 words perminute will only need to answer a query once every three minutes for thefirst 16-letter-key-code, and once every five minutes for the second16-letter-key-code. Performing the same optimizations for ambiguouscodes for 9 letter keys, we find, for example, the code akw bnq cly dhxepv fim gr jot suz optimized only for lookup error rate, and with lookuperror and query error rates of 116 words/lookup error and 4.4words/query respectively. This code is shown in an example layout on a9-letter-key smart card in FIG. 16. Optimizing for both lookup errorrate and query error rate sing the directed random walk method, one canalso construct codes such as am bnz cfi dhx evw gjr kos luy pqt withlookup error and query error rates of 109 words/lookup error and 6.2words/query respectively. It is to be noted that since no querying canbe performed using simple lookup disambiguation, strong touch typabilitycan only be discussed in terms of the lookup error rate. An evaluationmust be made as to whether lookup errors occur at a sufficiently lowrate as to produce acceptable text. Even for these 9-key codes, thelookup error rate is comparable to the rate at which skilled typistsproduce typing errors, hence these codes can be considered stronglytouch typable in this context. Further, since the smart card wouldtypically be used for short messaging, composition of electronic mail,communications to pagers, and the like, standards for text accuracy maybe lower than standards for transcription of final-copy text, forinstance. It is from these considerations that we arrive at thedefinition of 9 to 16 keys as the preferred range for this embodiment.More than 16 keys are difficult to fit into a smart card format whileretaining the advantages of substantially full-sized keys. On the otherhand, ambiguous codes on fewer than 9 keys may not be strongly touchtypable with respect to the simple disambiguation mechanisms compatiblewith the smart card's limited computing power.

-   Feedback to the typist A smart card equipped with simple lookup    disambiguation could be operated by a person who is a competent    touch typist, needing no feedback from the card as to the progress    of the communication, and/or getting feedback from the machinery at    the receiving end of the communication, potentially over a phone    line and potentially in the form of speech synthesized on the basis    of the symbols input by the typist on the smart card. It is    desirable, however, to provide feedback directly from the card    whenever there are sufficient computing resources built into the    card to supply that feedback.

Here it is pointed out that the computing resources needed to provideuseful feedback are even less than the computing resources needed forsimple lookup disambiguation. Even if no disambiguation database andsoftware is present on the card, and using only rudimentary electroniccircuitry, well known to those skilled in the art, a unique charactercan be sent directly to the display in response to each key press, wheresaid character is the most probable (according to the referencestatistics) letter associated with the key. Using for example the codeaw bi cx d ej fo g hv ky l mu n pz qr s t described above, the resultingtext would typically be quite readable by a human. For example, thefirst line of the Gettysburg address, rendered using 1-block(single-letter) statistics reads as follows:

-   -   oour score and sehen kears ago our oathers irought oorth on this        continent, a nea nation, conceihed in liiertk, and dedicated to        the proposition that all uen are created erual.

This level of accuracy is already enough provide a rough guide to thetypist as to the text he or she is in the process of entering on thesmart card. This example shows that disambiguation can be accomplishedwith extremely small amounts of memory; here the only memory required isthat needed to store the 16 characters which will be displayed inresponse to activation of the 16 keys. This approach is scalable interms of the computing resources required. With successively morememory, 2-, 3-, and higher-block probabilities could be stored and usedas the basis of well-known context-based disambiguation, and thus renderthe text with increasing accuracy for display to the user.

While context-based disambiguation is well known in the art, it hasheretofore proved to be not practical. This example shows the reason forthis: context-based disambiguation is not powerful enough to effectivelydisambiguate codes which are too ambiguous. In this examplecontext-based disambiguation is coupled with a code which issufficiently strongly touch-typable, sufficiently disambiguous, that itpermits effective disambiguation with a context-based method. The priorart has taught away from context-based disambiguation in favor orword-based disambiguation. However, in application of the teachings ofthis invention, context-based disambiguation is made operable and viablefor practical use.

The example further shows that 1) word-based disambiguation is notrequired to practice the teachings of this invention, 2) amicro-processor is not required to practice the teachings of thisinvention, and 3) more than one, potentially different, disambiguationmechanisms can be used in the same communication system based onambiguous codes. Word-based disambiguation, or another disambiguationmethod, could be used at the receiving end of a communication sent fromthe smart card, while locally the smart card is using simplecontext-based disambiguation to provide feedback to the user of thesmart card.

As the size of the blocks used in context-based disambiguationincreases, the accuracy of text rendering increases as well. However, atsome block size the amount of storage required approaches that of thestorage requirements of word-based disambiguation, and since word-baseddisambiguation generally gives better results than context-baseddisambiguation, word-based disambiguation will generally be preferred,if there is enough memory available to support it.

-   Further applications If there is memory available on the smart card    beyond that required for storage of the disambiguation database and    software, then the potential applications of this device are greatly    increased. For instance, with only a few bytes of additional memory,    a user could call an appropriate voice response system for telephone    directory information, request a phone number by typing in a name    and other identifying information on the smart-card keyboard, and    could then store the retrieved phone number in the user memory for    later downloading to another, more powerful, machine.-   Query Error Minimization—a typable device for a vehicle The present    embodiment concerns an instance in which query error is the dominant    constraint on typable device design. It is generally of value to    reduce the query error rate since the effort to answer queries    distracts from the typing task. In some applications, however,    reduction of query rate is of paramount importance.

Queries will be displayed on a visual display in most practicalimplementations of typable devices implementing ambiguous codes. Whenthe vision of the user is otherwise urgently occupied, for example whenthe user is driving a car, then, for safety reasons, distracting thatvision to the evaluation of queries must be kept to a minimum. Even whenqueries are made by auditory means, it is crucial to minimize driverdistraction. Further, while driving a car, both hands of the user aregenerally occupied in holding the steering wheel of the car, and shouldpreferably not be removed from the steering wheel to operate a typabledevice. This object can be achieved by embedding the input means of thetypable device directly in the steering wheel.

Referring now to FIG. 17, we note that any number of input means couldbe embedded in a steering wheel 200. Many steering wheels comprisecrenulations on the inner or rear surface of the wheel to provide bettergrip for the fingers. For these steering wheels, it is natural toassociate a first plurality of input means 201 with each of a pluralityof these crenulations. When the driver grasps the steering wheel, fourof the first input means 201 are contacted by the fingers of each hand.The region of the steering wheel contacted by the drivers hands maychange from moment to moment, for instance when the driver turns thesteering wheel through a large angle. Which set of 8 keys are contactedby the driver's hands at any one time can be recognized by aposition-sensing means, such as a combination of pressure sensitive keyswith simple electronic circuitry, which combination will be evident tothose skilled in the art. A second plurality of input means 202 can beplaced along the outer or upper surface of the steering wheel, wherebyone of said second input means is contacted by the thumb of each handwhile the steering wheel is grasped by the driver. Again, which of thesecond input means are contacted by the thumbs of the driver at any onetime can be detected by an appropriate position-detecting means.

With respect to the steering-wheel embedded keyboard just sketched, itis natural to select a code on 8 keys, said keys to be associated withthe first input means contacted by the fingers of both hands, along withtwo mode-switching keys to be associated with the second input meanscontacted by the thumbs of the driver.

-   Ambiguous code selection Applying the directed-random-walk method    taught by this invention for selecting substantially optimal codes,    and optimizing only with respect to the query error rate, we    construct, for instance, the following code on 8 letter keys: aksz    bcev dfi gmo hqt jnw luy prx with a lookup error rate of 70.2    words/lookup error, and a query error rate of 4.1 words/query. As    throughout this specification, these rates are calculated with    respect to our reference statistics, and using simple word-based    disambiguation as the disambiguation method. The query error rate    for this code might well be too high to consider this code to be    strongly touch-typable. A typist/driver typing 20 words/minute would    be distracted from driving by a query approximately every 12 second,    likely too often to be compatible with safe driving. On the other    hand, even a skilled typist may not be able to type 20 words per    minute while driving, potentially bringing the relationship between    query and typing rates into an acceptable range for strong touch    typability.

There are several additional strategies for reducing query error rate,beyond choosing a substantially optimal code, and these strategies canbe used in combination. They include

Increasing the total number of keys by increasing the number of keysactivatable by each finger. It will be appreciated that this could bedone, for instance, by adding another row of keys on the steering wheel,or, equivalently, making each key multipositionable, or using a chordingmethod by which two or more keys are pressed simultaneously to encode adifferent subset of encoding symbols.

Eliminating queries when the less-probable decodings are much lessprobable than the most-probable decodings. The parameter controlling howclose the probability must be between most-probable and less-probabledecodings must be to invoke a query is a parameter whose value could beselected by the user. Such a mechanism could be of value in anyembodiment in which query error rate is a relevant constraint.

Using a hybrid chording/ambiguous code method, as described in detailbelow.

Using a disambiguation method which is more powerful than simpleword-based disambiguation.

-   Phone keypads compatible with existing phone keypads In this    embodiment, the limitation on the number of keys is paramount since    the keypad must be compatible with existing telephone equipment    which generally have 12 keys. For the purposes of this embodiment,    we require that two of these keys must be reserved for non-letter    symbols such as space, backspace, period, and an end-of-transmission    symbol. Thus, the 26 letters must be distributed over at most 10    keys. In this embodiment both minimal lookup error rate and minimal    query error rate are desired. We find that using the optimization    methods taught by this invention and using the even-as-possible    partition on 10 keys, codes such as amq be cdu fiy gpx hl jsv krz nw    ot with lookup error rate of 138 words/lookup error, and query error    rate of 9.3 words/query can be found, while simultaneously    optimizing for lookup error rate and query error rate. This should    be compared to the lookup error rate of 29 words/lookup error and    the query error rate 2.2 words/query of the standard ambiguous code,    thus, there is an overall improvement of by more than a factor of 4    over the standard ambiguous code. Said 10-key code optimized for    lookup error rate and query error rate is shown in an example layout    on a telephone keypad in FIG. 18.

We may also compare this 10-key code with two 9-key codes proposed inU.S. Pat. No. 5,818,437 to Grover, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,953,541 to King,respectively. The first of these codes, afg bkn jlo mqr ew dhi sux ptvcyz has a lookup error rate 86.5 words/lookup error, and a queryrate of3.9 words/query, while the second, rpq adf nbz olx ewv img cyk thj suhas a lookup error rate of 115 words/lookup error, and a query errorrate of 5.2 words/query. These codes are both significantly inferior tothe example 10-key code which is herein designed for this task. Asneither the U.S. Pat. No. 5,818,437, nor U.S. Pat. No. 5,953,541 areenabling with respect to the construction of the cited ambiguous codes,nor are the statistics available with respect to which these codes areoptimized (if they are indeed optimized), we can draw no furtherconclusions as to the substantial optimality of these codes.

Another useful comparison is to 9-key codes which are optimizedaccording to the teachings of this invention with respect to both lookuperror rate and query error rate. We construct, for example, the code ambnz cfi dhx evw gjr kos luy pqt with lookup error rate 109 words/lookuperror and query error rate of 6.2 words/query. Comparing these results,we find that the improvements which result from the teachings of thisembodiment are from two sources 1) using more than 9 keys to permit theimprovement of lookup error rate and query error rate, and 2) optimizingboth with respect to lookup error rate and with respect to query errorrate. If the approach taught by this embodiment is extended to 11- and12-key codes, one finds for example the 11-key code, avy bn cl dhx ewfip gjo kr mu qt sz with lookup error and query error rates of 215words/lookup error and 10.1 words/query respectively, and the 12-keycode aw bn cky dhq of go ip jr lz mx sv tu with lookup error and queryerror rates of 313 words/lookup error and 13.2 words/query respectively.Thus, by sacrificing the use of the * and # keys for the encoding ofnon-letter symbols, we can dramatically improve lookup error rates, andsubstantially improve query error rates, bringing thestandard-telephone-compatible keyboards comfortably into the (level B)strongly touch-typable range. Whether or not these improvements outweighthe reduction of the ability to encode non-letter symbols by using * and# keys can only be decided in reference to the intended uses of thedevices so constructed. It is to be noted that non-letter symbols couldbe encoded using sequences of encoding symbols as described in referenceto the smart-card embodiment specified above. If the * key and # key areavailable to encode non-letter symbols, then a particularly ergonomicscheme, which respects in part the convention of using the # symbol asan end-of-transmission symbol is as follows. Let # encode the spacesymbol=end-of-word symbol, ## encode. =end-of-sentence symbol, and###=end-of-transmission symbol. In this way the complexity of encoding asymbols varies inversely with the probability of the symbol. Dependingon the application, sequences of the * symbol could then be used toencode other non-letter symbols such as backspace, @ (for electronicmail applications), and/or be used as a mode changing symbol.

-   Telephone keypad in alphabetic order This embodiment presents a    solution for a severely constrained keyboard-design problem in which    the number of keys is fixed, the placement of the keys is fixed, and    the ordering of symbols on these keys is fixed. This problem arises    in the design of a keyboard which 1) preserves as well as possible    the familiar alphabetic ordering of the standard ambiguous code, 2)    is compatible with existing, standard telephone keypads, and yet 3)    has improved lookup error rate and query error rate as compared to    the standard ambiguous code. These constraints allow a limited    freedom to choose the number of keys on which to base the ambiguous    code. One can choose, for example, to allow the ambiguous code for    the letters to occupy 10 keys of the telephone keypad, leaving the *    and # keys available for encoding non-alphabetic symbols. Also,    while the standard ambiguous code uses an even-as-possible    partition, one may choose an alternate, not even-as-possible,    partition and still respect the given constraints.

Given the constraint of alphabetic ordering, each ordered partition of26 elements into 10 groups corresponds to a unique ambiguous code. Givensufficient computing time, it would be possible to evaluate the lookupand query errors of each of these codes, and choose the best. Analternate and more efficient procedure is to apply the optimizationmethods taught by this invention to this constrained optimizationproblem. This invention teaches that a minimal elementary step in theset of possible codes should be defined, in the absence of informationsuggesting the use of some more complex elementary step. In the currentcontext, an ambiguous code is a ordered list of 10 groups of letters,such that all letters occur in exactly one group, and within and acrossgroups, the letters appear in alphabetic order. An example is ab cd efgh ij kl mn opqr stuv wxyz. There are thus 9 gaps separating the groups.An elementary step consists of moving one letter across one gap. Forinstance, if we choose the second gap, we can produce in one elementarymove either the code abc d ef gh ij kl mn opqr stuv wxyz, by moving theletter c to the left, or the code a bcd ef gh ij kl mn opqr stuv wxyz,by moving the letter b to the right. Given a specified code, allpossible codes which can be obtained by one elementary move from thespecified code can be simply generated. Given this observation, and thespecification of the directed random walk method given above, it will beevident to one skilled in the art how to apply the optimization methodstaught by this invention in the present context. Applying this method wefind, for example, the not even-as-possible code ab cd ef gh ijklm nopqr s tu vwxyz, with a lookup error rate of 65 words/lookup error and aquery error rate of 5.8 words/query. This code is shown in a preferredarrangement on the keypad of a telephone in FIG. 19. The error rates ofthis code should be compared to those of standard ambiguous code, with alookup error rate of 29 words/lookup error, and a query error rate of2.2 words/query. Thus the improvement in lookup error rate is more thana factor of 2, and the improvement in query error rate is nearly afactor of 3, with no sacrifice of easy-to-scan alphabetic ordering, norcompatibility with existing telephone equipment. It is to be appreciatedthat the discussion above in reference to the choice of 11- or 12-keyencoding of letter symbols for a telephone embodiment apply to thisembodiment as well; using optimization over partitions, substantiallyoptimal codes for 11 and 12 keys can be produced which obey theconstraint of substantial alphabetic ordering.

The method of optimization over partitions is evidently not limited tothis embodiment; it could be applied, for instance, to the smart cardembodiment previously discussed, to produce optimal codes withalphabetic ordering on an array of 9-16 letter-symbol bearing keys, orto Qwerty-like keyboards as discussed below. Qwerty-like Keyboards Theapproach used in the previous embodiment to generate a keyboard which atonce 1) is compatible with a standard keyboard, and 2) is optimized withrespect to various constraints, can be used to produce keyboards whichare 1) similar to the standard Qwerty keyboard, and 2) are optimizedwith respect to various constraints. As in the previous embodiment wewill maintain as well as possible the layout of the standard keyboard bymaintaining the ordering of the assignment of symbols to keys, and yetoptimize over partitions of those ordered symbols so as to minimizelookup and query error rates as well as possible, maintaining aneven-as-possible or not even-as-possible partition. This embodiment isQwerty-like in that that letters remain in the same row of keys as givenby the Qwerty arrangement, generally implying that the number ofletter-assigned keys monotonically decreases from top to bottom row, asis the case for the conventional Qwerty keyboard

There exists a sequence of keyboard layouts which are Qwerty-like inthat they have three rows devoted to letter keys, and variable numbersof columns, from one up to 10 columns. It is clear that with but onecolumn, that is, but three keys, lookup and query error rates must bevery high. There is but one possible ambiguous code which corresponds tothe ordering of symbols of the Qwerty keyboard. This code, qwertyuiopasdfghjkl zxcvbnm, is an even-as-possible Qwerty-like code with a lookuperror rate of 2.8 words/lookup error, and a query error rate of 1.1words/query. This code of such poor quality that it is unlikely to beacceptable for any serious use. As the number of columns increases, weare able to find better and better ambiguous codes which are stronglytouch typable beyond some threshold number of columns At the same time,as the number of columns increases, the device size required to containthe keyboard, maintaining substantially full-sized keys, increases aswell. Thus design of Qwerty-like keyboards must be a compromise betweencode ambiguity and keyboard size If, for example, we wish to build akeyboard which is Qwerty-like and substantially the same size as apocket calculator yet using full-sized keys, 7 columns can be used, asshown in FIG. 20. A not even-as-possible strongly touch-typable code,substantially optimal with respect to lookup error and query error ratesis qwe r t yu i o p as d f g hjk l zxc vb n m with lookup error every668 words, and query every 35.5 words, clearly strongly touch typablewith respect to a large class of typists and keyboard uses. In FIG. 20this code is shown in a preferred arrangement. A typable device with akeyboard as described in this figure would be suitable for note-taking,composing electronic mail, and the like. It would be readily typablewith no or minimal learning by anyone familiar with the standard Qwertykeyboard, and, even built with full-sized keys, it would fit easily intoa pocket.

It is to be noted that in terms of lookup and query error rates, thecost of adhering to the Qwerty convention is high, even when theconvention is adhered to but approximately. In the code given above 17keys are devoted to letter symbols. If we now allow for arbitraryassignments of letters to 17 keys, we find codes such as w r t bu gi ovp af s d ej ky l hz cx n mq with a lookup error rate of 7483words/lookup error, and a query error rate of 290 words/query. This isequivalent to one lookup error every 30 pages of typed text, and lessthan one query per page of typed text. It is difficult to imagine a usewith respect to which this keyboard would not be strongly touch typable.

With reference to FIG. 21, we see that this code can be laid out in sucha way that 18 letters at or very close to their Qwerty positions, theseletters are indicated in bold face. In this arrangement, to maximize theconservation of typing gestures typing on the Qwerty keyboard, thefingers should be placed on the home row of this optimized Qwerty-likekeyboard such that the index finger of the left hand is on the (space)key and the index finger of the right hand is on the (ej) key. Notablyby bringing both the space key and the ‘e’ to the home row, this layoutmakes a step from the Qwerty layout in the direction of anatomicfidelity as well as conservation of conventional gestures, in that theweight on the home row is increased relative to Qwerty, and the weighton the strongest fingers is increased relative to the Qwerty weight. Bysuitable assignments of symbols to keys, any ambiguous code can bebrought into optimal coherence with the Qwerty (or other conventional)keyboard.

It is to be noted that by allowing some departure from strict Qwertyordering, a very substantial gain has been made in terms of functionalconservation of Qwerty gestures and layout. When the rows are slightlydisplaced relative to one another, such as they are in the standardQwerty layout, much or most of the finger gestures required to operatethe various keys of this Qwerty-like keyboard is the same or similar tothe finger gestures required to operate the standard Qwerty keyboard.This illustrates a tradeoff between the constraints of preservation of aconventional ordering, and the constraint of preservation ofconventional function.

Labeling to Optimize Cross-Platform Compatibility

In view of the many competing constraints which might be optimized, andthe variety of user populations and their needs, it would be motivatedin practical implementations of such devices to allow users the choicebetween the optimized Qwerty-like keyboard and other correspondingkeyboards optimized or optimized as well with respect to a selection ofother constraints, such as lookup and query error rates. This choicewould be facilitated if the labeling of the keys could be changed insoftware. This object could be attained if each key were equipped with adisplay means capable of displaying at least one symbol at a time. Suchdisplay means could for instance comprise an light-emitting diode array,or a liquid-crystal display, etc, the labeling of the keys could therebybe changed in software, eliminating the need to fixedly label the keyswith indicia corresponding to all of the alternate layouts

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the keyboarddesign method used to prepare the present embodiment could be applied tothe conservation or partial conservation of other conventional keyboarddesigns, such as the Azerty keyboard used in France.

-   Numeric Keypad-like Keyboards This embodiment has the object of    making the advantages of an ambiguous keyboards available to most    computer users, with minimal cost and with no change in their    existing hardware. These advantages notably include the advantage of    one-hand typability, and the advantage of potential compatibility    with ambiguous keyboards designed for hand-held devices. Standard    101-key keyboards for workstations and personal computers include a    numeric keypad, typically to the right of the part of the keyboard    laid out in a Qwerty arrangement, though it may be included as a    subset of the keys in the Qwerty arrangement. This is the usual case    for laptop computers Typically, there is included a set of arrow    keys, or other input means effective for moving the cursor, near the    numeric keypad.

Referring now to FIG. 22 we present an ambiguous code optimized for acommon numeric keypad layout 600 taken together with the means formoving the cursor 601 where such is available. Said numeric keypad 600has in this example 17 keys of various sizes. Depending on other designconstraints, some or all of these keys could be used for punctuation, orother symbols, and these other design constraints could influence thechoice of the number of keys to be assigned to letters, the distributionof letters and other symbols over modes and so on. The essentialfeatures of this embodiment are:

-   -   assignment of an ambiguous code to a plurality of keys in the        numeric keypad    -   optional use of the thumb-actuatable auxiliary input means to        change modes.

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that said assignmentof an ambiguous code to a plurality of keys in the ambiguous keypad canbe achieved in software; there is no need for special-purpose hardware.However, if it is desired to have the keys thus assigned be labeled withthe elements of the ambiguous code, then some modification of thekeyboard labeling may be required. To give a concrete example of the useof an ambiguous code in this setting, we choose an ambiguous code inwhich letters are assigned to 17 keys in such a way as to minimizelookup error and query error rate, with respect to our standard corpus.The code illustrated in FIG. 22 af bu cx d ej gi hz ky l mq n ov p r s tw has a lookup error rate of 7483 words/lookup error, and a query errorrate of 290 words/query. This same code has already been discussedabove. Here the code is laid out in such a way as to preserve in part analphabetic order. The given code has not been optimized relative toalphabetic ordering; it has only been optimized with respect to lookuperror rate and query error rate. The procedure is the same as in theconstruction of the nearly Qwerty-ordered keyboard discussed above:first optimize for lookup and/or query error rate, and then rearrange toobtain, as well as possible, the desired order of the letters. Accordingto the teachings of this invention, it would be possible tosimultaneously optimize with respect to lookup error rate, query errorrate, alphabetic ordering, and/or other constraints.

To illustrate the use of the thumb-actuated auxiliary input means formode changing, we refer again to FIG. 22. We assume for the sake of thisillustration that the auxiliary input means is comprised of 4 keys: up602, down 603, left 604, and right 605 arrow keys. These functionalitiesare typically implemented with 4 depressible keys, but they aresometimes implemented as a touchpad, a joystick, or some other devicecapable of generating multiple, different signals as a function ofmanipulation by the user. It is to be noted that in FIG. 22 a pluralityof keys are labeled with symbols other than those of the ambiguous code,in this case digits. These other symbols can be obtained by depressing aspecified one of the four keys of the auxiliary input means. A possibleassignment of modes to input means in the auxiliary keypad is

-   -   602(up) Shift key for upper case letters.    -   603 (down) numeric/punctuation mode.    -   604 (left) left symbol on key.    -   605 (right) right symbol on key.

It will be appreciated that 1) other assignments of modes and/or symbolsto the auxiliary keypad are possible, and in accordance with theteachings of this invention, and 2) with a more complex set of auxiliaryinput means, additional modes and symbols can be assigned to theauxiliary input means. Assignment of symbols to modes will be discussedin more detail in reference to another embodiment. That discussion isapplicable to other embodiments, including this embodiment.

-   Objects and advantages of 13-letter-key codes Several related    embodiments of the teachings of this invention exploit the    surprising benefits of optimizing ambiguous codes for keyboards in    which the number of keys devoted to strongly correlated symbols is    substantially half of the number of strongly correlated symbols. In    particular, if we take the set of strongly correlated symbols as the    set of letters [a-z] used in English, then the preferred number of    keys is 13. The surprising benefits of a 13-letter-key code for    English include:    -   strong touch-typability,    -   ergonomic, touch-typable, unambiguous text entry.    -   ergonomic, touch-typable, querying.    -   compatibility with standard keyboard layouts (Qwerty keypad,        numeric keypad, and telephone keypad),    -   providing for conservation of typing skills from 1- to 2-handed        typing,    -   providing for an integrated mouse/keyboard.    -   providing a mechanism to reduce typing injuries.

Further objects and advantages will become clear in detailedspecification below, which takes up in turn each of the above-listedobjects and advantages.

-   Strong touch typability Referring again to FIGS. 11 and 12, we see    that with respect to word-based disambiguation, ambiguous codes on    13 keys can be found which are strongly touch typable, even for an    accomplished typist. Using the directed-random-walk method described    above, we find, for instance, the code aw bn ck du of go hv ip js ly    mx qt rz with a lookup error rate of 515 words/lookup error, and a    query error rate of 21 words/query, (level C) strong touch    typability. This code is shown in a preferred arrangement in    FIG. 25. As discussed above, this query error rate can be reduced    further by adjustment of a parameter which controls how important    queries must be to require user attention. In the limit where    querying is turned off entirely, the lookup error rate controls    touch typability. With this code, lookup errors will occur on    average approximately once every two pages of typed text, that is to    say, at a rate much less than the rate of typing errors of even very    skilled typists. Thus, 13-key codes exist which are suitable for a    wide range of touch typing tasks, for a wide range of users.-   Ergonomic, touch-typable unambiguous text entry With any ambiguous    keyboard, and any disambiguation mechanism, it may be advantageous    to provide a mechanism by which it is possible to enter information    in an unambiguous manner, for instance, to add information to the    disambiguation database. For all uses of ambiguous keyboards it is    advantageous for the unambiguous text entry mechanism to be as    ergonomic as possible, ergonomic meaning in this case simple to    operate. For ambiguous keyboards meant to be touch typed, it is    advantageous if, further, the keyboard can be operated in    unambiguous text-entry mode in a touch-typable manner.

One strategy often employed in the prior art to achieve unambiguous textentry using a small number of keys is to use a chording method. Insatisfying their urge to maximally reduce the number of keys, chordingkeyboard designers have consistently taught away from providing asufficient number of keys so that chording patterns can be kept simple.By an elementary combinatorial argument, the number of keys cannot beless than ½ the number of symbols to be encoded if the complexity of achord is never more than 2, that is, if it is never required to activemore than 2 input means substantially simultaneously in order tounambiguously encode a symbol. The present invention teaches, bycontrast to the prior art, to provide a number of keys no less than ½the number of symbols to be encoded, if a simple mechanism forunambiguous encoding of those symbols is to be provided. In particular,the present invention teaches to provide at least 13 keys to representthe letters [a-z], and at least one mode changing key. Saidmode-changing key such that when activated by a user in combination withone of the letter-assigned keys serves to uniquely and unambiguouslyencoding one of the letters associated to said one letter-assigned key

In an ambiguous keyboard, some keys represent a plurality of symbolswith a single keystroke. To use the same keyboard in an unambiguousmode, said single keystroke must be combined with at least one otherkeystroke, perhaps of the same key, to permit each individual symbolassociated to the key to be singled out. For ergonomics, it ispreferable that said combination of keystrokes be as simple as possible,and for a touch typability, it is preferable that substantially the samecombination of keystrokes is used for unambiguous entry of all symbols.These two constraints are best satisfied if 1) the same number ofsymbols is associated with each ambiguous key, and (an even-as-possiblepartition) 2) the number of symbols on each ambiguous key is small.Taken together, these constraints imply that the preferred number ofkeys for an ambiguous code which is to be touch typed is one-half of thenumber of symbols to be represented ambiguously. And, in the case wherethe symbols to be represented are the 26 letters in the alphabet, theconstraints taken together imply that 13 keys are preferred, in theabsence of any further constraints

One way this observation can be exploited to produce an ergonomic,touch-typable ambiguous keyboard with an ergonomic, touch-typableunambiguous text entry mode is described in reference to FIG. 23, and inreference to the case of ambiguous representation of the letters of theEnglish alphabet with 13 keys. In this figure, each of the subset ofkeys used to ambiguously represent the letters 700, encodes exactly twoletters. The typable device further comprises a mode key 701 and a meansfor placing the device in either ambiguous or unambiguous text-entrymode. The means for placing the typable device in ambiguous orunambiguous text-entry mode could be a software means which detects,depending on context, which of these modes is required at any giveninstant, or a key devoted to this mode change, or a particular patternof input on other input means, such as a double tap on the mode-changingkey 701, a long or short press of any of the keys, or many other meanswell-known in the art to allow a given key to correspond to severalencoding symbols. When in unambiguous text-entry mode, activation of the701 key causes one a selected symbol from the two symbols associatedwith a key in the plurality 700 to be encoded when said key in theplurality 700 is activated substantially simultaneously in combinationwith the 701 key. It is preferable to think of the pair of symbols oneach key in the plurality 700 to be composed of a left symbol and aright symbol, and to label the keys with the left symbol on the left andthe right symbol on the right. Then one of these, without loss ofgenerality, the left of these, is associated with activation of the 701key whereby unambiguous text entry can be achieved. In other words, whena key in the plurality 700 is activated in combination with the 701 key,the left symbol is selected unambiguously, and if the same key in theplurality 700 is activated without the 701 key being substantiallysimultaneously activated, then the right symbol is selectedunambiguously. If the keyboard is designed to incorporate additionalmodes, then this same method of unambiguous text entry could be usedalso in reference to the symbols in the other modes.

-   Touch-typing oriented querying Even with an optimal ambiguous code,    coupled to unlimited computing power and ultimate, yet-to-be    discovered artificial-intelligence techniques for disambiguation,    some ambiguous sequences may be generated in the course of typing a    text which require intervention of a human operator to effect full    disambiguation.

True touch-typists type without looking at the keyboard, keeping theireyes focused on the text being produced, or the copy being transcribed.For the touch typists, then, it is preferable to have all querying foralternate interpretations of ambiguous sequences done in such a waythat 1) their eyes are not diverted from the text-display screen and 2)queries can be answered in a simple, stereotypical manner from thekeyboard. These objects can be accomplished by reserving a key foradvancing in a list of candidate words, and highlighting the ambiguousword on the screen. Users scroll through the list of candidate wordsusing this scroll key, and as soon as a key other than the “scroll” keyis pressed, the word in the scroll box is considered selected.

With reference to 23 and 24, we explain in detail the softwareunderlying touch-typing-oriented querying, and the visual display itcontrols. In the first step 800 a query has been detected, that is, thedisambiguation mechanism has discovered that more than one meaningfuldecoding sequence in the database corresponds to the input encodingsequence. Entrance in the query mode causes a means to draw the usersattention to the decoding under query to be display. These means couldbe visual means such as the framebox 702 shown in FIG. 23. The possibledecodings are then ordered according to their likelihood (step 802).Then, (step 804) the most-likely decoding is displayed on the screen, incontext with the text previously entered, in a place indicated by theattention means. The software is then prepared to detect either inputfrom the scroll key, or some other key (step 806). If some input isreceived from some other key, then the means to draw attention to theuser is removed (step 808), the decoding is added to the text previouslyentered (step 810), and ambiguous text entry mode is reentered.

On the other hand, if input from the scroll key is detected at step 806,then a test is performed to see if there exists any other meaningfuldecodings in the data base 812. If there is, the current decoding isreplaced with the next most probable decoding (step 814), and step 806is returned to. If there is no next-most-probable decoding, then,preferably, the typable device enters unambiguous text entry mode asdescribed above (step 816), when the decoding sequence has beenunambiguously entered, the means to draw attention to the user isremoved (step 808), the unambiguously entered decoding is added to theexisting text (step 810) and ambiguous text entry mode is reentered(step 818).

While this method for in situ presentation of alternatives has beenpresented in terms of touch-typing-oriented querying, it will beappreciated that the same method could be applied in other contexts,such as when the “decodings” are words with related meanings, and thedatabase is a thesaurus, or when the “decodings” are various possibletranslations of a word into a foreign language, and the probabilities ofthe decodings are supplied by an automatic translation program.

-   Conservation of design across platforms as a constraint: a    mouse/keyboard Consider a user of a small typable device equipped    with a one-handed touch-typable keyboard, such as a personal digital    assistant. In the course of a typical day, the user might also type    on his or her desktop computer equipped with a two-handed keyboard.    If both of these devices are to be effectively touch typable for    that user, the motor patterns used in the one- and two-handed    keyboards must be as similar as possible. The shorter the interval    between the uses of the two keyboards, the stronger the requirement    for conservation of typing skills. To sharply draw the object of    conservation of typing skills across platforms, and the means by    which this invention achieves this object, we now turn to an    embodiment in which 1- and 2-handed keyboards may be used in rapid    alteration.

This embodiment concerns a one-handed keyboard suitable for entry ofdata into forms, such as spreadsheets or web-based forms. It will be ofuse for interaction with a program, such as a game or a drawingprogram, 1) which requires quick alternation of typing and cursormovement, and/or 2) where the symbol set which is appropriate for entrymay vary depending on where the cursor is on the screen. Using thestandard computing configuration of a Qwerty keyboard and a mouse, usersmust remove their hands from the keyboard to move the mouse. In taskswhich involve both typing and mouse manipulation in rapid succession,such as labeling a design presented on the computer screen, or fillingin a form, such as an HTML form, this alternating use of mouse andkeyboard can be quite slow and laborious. In this embodiment, aone-handed keyboard is mounted in a frame which may be moved over asurface and thus perform the functions of a mouse as well as a keyboard.Since users may prefer to use a two-handed keyboard for predominantlytext-entry tasks, and intermix usage of the one-handed keyboard with useof the one-handed keyboard, it is desirable to have the layout of keyson both keyboards be as similar as possible, so as to permit seamlesstransfer of touch-typing skills from the two-handed to the one-handedkeyboard.

Referring now to FIGS. 25, 28 and 26, we see how this object can beattained by the choice of an ambiguous code which is such that it can belaid out on the one-handed keyboard so that the movements of the fingersand the thumb of one hand (in this case the right hand) are the same,whether that hand is typing on the one-handed or two-handed keyboard,and that, further, the typing movements of the other hand are similar tothe movements of the hand chosen for one handed typing.

The design strategy is as follows:

-   -   Choose a 13-key code with substantially minimal lookup error        rate and query error rate.    -   Choose a physical layout for the 13 keys. A layout with 5 keys        in the top row, 5 keys in the middle (home) row, and 3 keys in        the bottom row is a preferred arrangement.    -   Choose which hand will actuate the one-handed keyboard.    -   Arrange the keys such that, in the one-handed layout, and        relative to the hand chosen in the previous step: where        -   weight on the home row is maximized.        -   weight on the strongest fingers is maximized.        -   weight on the top row is higher then weight on the bottom            row.    -   Then, to obtain a layout for the two-handed keyboard, pair each        key actuated with the left-hand to a key actuated by the right        hand. Preferably, the pairing is done so that members of the        pair are laid out symmetrically, with respect to a symmetry        plane which cuts the keyboard at the center, and runs from the        bottom to the top of the keyboard.    -   Of the two symbols associated to each of the 13 original keys,        associate one symbol to one of the keys in each pair chosen in        the previous step. This can be done in a way favoring the        one-handed keyboard, or in a way favoring the related two-handed        keyboard.        -   If favoring the one-handed keyboard: retain the            higher-probability letter on the chosen-hand side of the            two-handed keyboard, and place the lower-probability letter            on the opposite side of the keyboard.        -   If favoring the two-handed keyboard: for each of the 13            keys, choose to place either the lower or the higher            probability letter on a given side of the two-handed            keyboard so that the summed probability on each half of the            keyboard is as equal as possible.

Beginning with the 13-key code selected to illustrate the teachings ofthis embodiment, and choosing to favor the right hand, one constructsthe keyboard layout described in FIG. 25. When this one-handed keyboardis expressed as a two-handed keyboard, the resulting layout is shown inFIG. 26. On this keyboard, the right hand types approximately 84 percentof the letters, while the left hand types approximately 16 percent ofthe letters. This asymmetry is desirable in that the large majority ofkeystrokes will be performed in exactly the same manner whether theone-handed or the two-handed keyboard is used.

Conversely, if most typing is done with a two-handed keyboard, and onlyoccasionally with a one-handed keyboard, it may be desirable to have aseven as possible weight on the two hands when used to operate thetwo-handed keyboard. This object can be achieved with an alternatelayout of the two-handed keyboard as shown in FIG. 27. It will beappreciated that substantially 50 percent of the typing motions used intyping on the two-handed version of this keyboard are the same as thetyping motions used on the one-handed keyboard, whether the one-handedkeyboard is typed with the right or the left hand.

It will be appreciated that for a 13-key ambiguous code there are 2¹³different ways of pairing homologous left- and right-hand keys of atwo-handed keyboard. This number is small enough that the symmetry ofthe weights assigned to the two hands in each set of pairings can beevaluated, and depending on whether a most-symmetric or most-asymmetricweighting is desired, or some intermediate value, the appropriateassignment can be selected.

Referring now to FIG. 28, a detailed view of the one-handed keyboard, wesee how the objects of this embodiment are achieved by equipping thekeyboard with a plurality of keys 300, a thumb-actuatable input means301, mouse keys 302, a palm grip 303, and a display 304. The keyboardmay be further equipped with a communication means to enable symbolselections by means of the keyboard to be communicated to the computer.This communication means could be simply a wire, or a wirelesscommunication means such as an infrared communication means. Thekeyboard is slidably supported on a support means, such as a desktop,whereby the keyboard can be moved over the support means by means ofpressure from the base of the palm of the hand actuating the keyboard.The keyboard is preferably equipped with a means for palm grip means forengaging said base of the palm to allow said pressure to be effective inmoving the keyboard. Said means for engaging said base of palm of thehand operating the keyboard are preferably formed means where the formis such that slight pressure is effective to move the keyboard in anydesired direction. For instance, the form could be an indentation in thebody of the keyboard which securely engages the base of the palm. Bymoving the keyboard in this way, the fingers of the hand actuating thekeyboard are free to move in a way effective to actuate the keys, evenwhile the keyboard is in motion. Thus this keyboard can be used insituations, such as for playing computer games, in which motion needs tobe simultaneously input along with symbol sequences such as text.

It is to be noted that while this device performs the functions of amouse, it bears little physical similarity to a mouse. Its form factoris determined by the anatomy of the hand in a comfortable position fortouch typing. The device must therefore be considerably larger than astandard mouse, and the means for moving the device substantiallydifferent.

To communicate motion of the keyboard 305 to the computer, said keyboardis equipped with a motion sensing means, such as a trackball, familiarto those skilled in the art. Preferably, the keyboard 305 can be furtherequipped with a biasing means, such as springs, to lift the keyboardaway from the support means when the weight of the hand on the keyboardis lessened, thus facilitating movement. In contradistinction, when thesubstantially full weight of the hand is applied to the keyboard, thekeyboard remains relatively stably fixed to the support means wherebytyping is facilitated.

The two-handed keyboard may thereby be used for long typing episodes,uninterrupted by the need to move a mouse, and the one-handed keyboardfor quick typing/mouse movement alternation.

-   Visual Representation of the Keyboard It will be appreciated that    when using a single device which supports more than one ambiguous    codes, or more than one mode, it may be helpful to the user to have    a representation of the current association of keys with symbols at    any given moment displayed on the displayed device. While such a    representation could be of value for any typable device, it is of    particular utility for touch-typable devices, since for such    devices, some or all of the keys are hidden from view (typically by    the fingers of the operator) while in use. Thus, any display means    integrated into the keys is of limited utility for the touch typist.    The most useful visual representations are those in which the    physical layout of the keyboard is represented in the visual    display. Such a device 304 is shown in FIG. 28, but could be    incorporated in many of the embodiments described in this    disclosure.-   Reduction of typing injury Typing injuries (repetitive stress    syndrome) afflict many keyboard users. Numerous keyboards have been    designed in an attempt to attenuate the stress of the repetitive    motions involved in typing. It has long been recognized that the    most effective means to reduce typing injuries is for the typist to    take regular breaks from typing. This is seldom practical, however,    as typists are often under time pressure to complete their typing    work. The one-handed keyboard just described offers a solution to    this problem. While the one-handed version of the present embodiment    has been described as being used with the right hand, it is evident    that the same design methods lead to a left-handed one-hand keyboard    as well. Each of these keyboards is capable of encoding all of the    same symbols. A therapeutic typable device equipped with both a    right-handed and a left-handed keyboard, such as both a left and a    right-handed mouse/keyboard as described above, could be operated    with either the left or the right hand in alteration. With such a    pair of keyboards, a user wishing to reduce repetitive-stress    injuries could type for some period of time, for instance, for 15    minutes, using one of the keyboards, and then switch for the next    period of time to the other keyboard, whereby the user gives each    hand a resting period, with no decrement to typing productivity. If    desired, the typable device could be equipped with a locking means    which would alternately lock one or the other of the keyboards,    enforcing alternating use. It is to be appreciated that when therapy    is completed, the user could return to a two-handed version of the    keyboard, with no relearning of typing skills required.-   Foldable PDA We saw in the smart-card embodiment described above    that it is convenient and ergonomic to place the text screen of a    typable device based on ambiguous codes in such a way that part of    the keyboard is manipulated by the fingers of one or both hands and    the thumb may be used to actuate further input means, in particular,    mode-changing input means, in the region above the thumb or thumbs    and to the side of the finger-manipulated part of the keyboard. The    present embodiment concerns a typable device at a somewhat larger    scale which uses the same concept in conjunction with a folding    concept in order to design a twice-foldable information appliance    which may ergonomically perform different functions when it is    unfolded, once folded, and twice folded.

This twice-foldable design is a surprising consequence of ambiguouscodes. It is remarkable that typable devices built by the methods taughtby the present invention permit keyboards which are at once 1) effectivefor the coding of natural language, 2) use substantially full-size keys,and 3) are small enough to be placed in a pocket or a small hand bag.This embodiment is based on building a hand-held computing device fromsubstantially same-sized elementary units which are the size of akeyboard designed for an ambiguous code, said units being configurablein a variety of ways depending on the instant needs of a user. Theelementary units can be foldably and/or detachably connected to eachother in each of a variety of configurations. In this way the computingdevice can alternately play the role of a laptop computer, a personaldigital assistant, a telephone, a gaming device, and so on.

With reference first to FIG. 29 we specify in detail a twice-foldablecomputer built from four substantially same-sized parts, each of whichis adapted to perform a specified function and are connected to eachother in a foldable and/or detachable way. FIG. 29 shows such a devicein the unfolded state. It is thus revealed that one of the parts 900 hasa first surface which functions as a first visual display, while 901 hasa first surface which functions as a first keyboard and 902 has a firstsurface which functions as a second keyboard. Preferably, the keyboardlayout on said first and second keyboards is a 13-letter-key keyboard,though many other choices are possible. The final part 903 has a firstsurface which functions as a pair of mode-changing thumb switches, to beused in combination with the said first and second keyboards. The firstkeyboard is meant to be operated with the right hand. It will be evidentto those skilled in the art that a similar configuration exists which istypable with the left hand, and that this similar configuration can beobtained by simple rearrangement and reattachment of the four parts.Indeed, a two-handed keyboard can be obtained from by detachment andrearrangement of the four units as shown in FIG. 33.

FIG. 30 shows the unfolded twice-foldable computer in a bottom view.Part 904 is a telephone keypad 905 and corresponding second visualdisplay 906. Part 907 is a third visual display, and part 908 a thirdkeyboard. Parts 904, 905, 906, 907 form the second surfaces of parts900, 901, 902, 903 respectively.

Folding the computer along the line 908 shown in FIGS. 29 and 30 weobtain the configuration shown in FIG. 31. In this configuration thethird keyboard is exposed for typing, and the third visual display isused as the corresponding display. Here the keyboard layout is a 12-keykeyboard, but many other choices are possible. This configuration mightbe used when, due to time or space limitations, the user is unable orunwilling to open the computer to its full extent. It might also be usedto supply a different functionality than the fully unfolded computer,such as a gaming functionality.

Finally, the computer can be folded along the fold 909 shown in FIG. 31to provide the twice-folded configuration shown in FIG. 32. This is theconfiguration in which the computer would be typically kept fortransportation; in this configuration the device could be small enoughto fit into a pocket. Further, in this twice-folded configuration thetelephone functionality is exposed for use. For many users, this will bethe most frequently used configuration of the device. It will be notedthat we have shown the telephone keypad with the ambiguous code of aprevious embodiment, though many other choices are possible.

To recapitulate: thanks to ambiguous codes, we can design a portablecommunication and computing device which functions alternately as atelephone, a personal digital assistant, and a laptop computer.

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that if each of theelementary units, including the keyboard units, are built fromtouch-screens, then the variety of configurations and uses of thisdevice could be further increased. What would be lost, however, is thetactile feedback from the keyboards built from standard, depressablekeys. Many other variants are possible, consistent with the teachings ofthe present invention.

-   Software embodiment for a typable device comprising a touchscreen    This invention permits software as well as hardware embodiments. In    particular, the methods of the present invention can be used to    design typable mechanisms for devices comprising touch screens, such    as the series of personal digital assistants built by the 3Com    corporation and sold under the trademark PALM PILOT, as well as    other trademarks, For the sake of illustration, we will focus on the    PALM PILOT class of devices, which includes hand-held computers    capable or running a variety of applications programs, though the    methods herein described could be applied to any typable device    comprising a touch screen.

In reference to FIG. 34, we note that devices of the PALM PILOT classtypically comprise: a touch screen 1000, a touch-sensitive region 1001which is used for entering characters via hand-writing recognitionsoftware. Said touch-sensitive region may be a subregion of the touchscreen, or may be implemented separately.

One of the essential and surprising features of the present embodimentis that by use of a touch-typable keyboard in a device comprising atouch screen, we design a radically new user interface for informationappliances such that keyboards need not compete for limited screen spacewith applications programs. The same touch screen area can be used bothfor the application program and for the keyboard.

The crucial observation is that if the keyboard=has fixed letterassignments to keys, then the keyboard does not need to be displayed tothe user to be operative. The user's fingers “know” where the keys are,without visual referents. Thus, the keyboard can be used to enter datainto which ever application program is currently displayed on thetouchscreen. If, further, the keyboard is strongly touch typable, thenthe keyboard can be used to produce high quality text, even if no screenspace is used for querying feedback to the user.

With reference to FIGS. 34 and 35, some of the particular features ofthe PALM PILOT class of devices which are accounted for in the presentembodiment are:

-   -   The ability of the touch screen 1000 to easily present alternate        keyboard layouts.    -   The ability of a touch screen to present images of different        levels of intensity and/or in different colors.    -   The placement of the region for entering characters 1001 at some        remove from the touch screen, or in a non-central region of the        touch screen.    -   The use of the personal digital assistant to run a variety of        programs, such as scheduling programs or address-book programs,        which may compete for space on the touch screen with a keyboard.

The ability of touch screens to easily present alternate keyboardlayouts is used in this embodiment to enable a given input means torepresent many different symbols or groups of symbols, depending on the“mode” of the keyboard at any given time. When a touch screen is used toembody a keyboard, each input means is associated with a specifiedregion of the touch screen. The dual function of the touch screen as avisual display and as a plurality of mechanically activated input meansis exploited to give each input means different functions and differentlabels depending on mode. It will be appreciated, however, that the sameeffect could be obtained with mechanical keys of a traditional,depressable structure by equipping each mechanical key with its owndisplay device. In this way, the methods for mode changing herespecified in reference to a touchscreen comprising device could beapplied to devices comprising mechanical keys, such as many of the otherdevices specified in the present disclosure.

-   Mode Selection One strategy in keyboard design to increase the    number of symbols which can be encoded given a fixed number of keys    is to augment the keyboard with a number of mode-changing keys.    Pressing a mode-changing key changes the symbol encoded by a    plurality of other keys. The canonical example is the shift key of    the standard typewriter keyboard which changes the symbol encoded by    the letter keys from lower case to upper case. Upper-case letters    could in principle be encoded on a separate set of keys from the    keys encoding lower-case letters, and if upper-case letters occurred    with the same frequency as lower-case letters in typical    communications, then this could be a defensible choice. Also in    principle, having upper- and lower-case letters accessible in    different modes does not imply that an upper-case letter must be    assigned to the same key as the corresponding lower-case letter. The    same-key assignment is chosen in practice because there are strong    conventional, conceptual and statistical relationships between    lower- and upper-case letters.

Thus there are three principles which guide the assignment of symbols tomodes and of symbols to keys within modes: adherence to statisticalrelationships, adherence to conventional relationships, and adherence toconceptual relationships between symbols. In the design of typabledevices employing ambiguous codes the problems associated with thedesign of modes are particularly acute since a plurality of keys mustalready carry the burden of encoding more than one letter symbol on eachkey, and the number of keys available to encode symbols is typicallysharply limited. However, the same methods which have been above appliedto produce ambiguous codes for letter symbols can also be applied tonon-letter symbols such as punctuation, provided that these non-lettersymbols are strongly correlated.

The collection of symbols to be encoded by a keyboard will be dividedinto subsets corresponding to modes. Modes can be at least partiallyordered according to how much manipulation is required on the part ofthe user to obtain each mode and/or how frequently the symbols in eachmode are used. Thus we can speak of primary, secondary, tertiary modesand so on in order of increasing amounts of manipulation required toobtain each mode and/or decreasing probability of the symbols in themode.

Letter symbols are preferably placed in the first mode or modes. Thesubtle design issues have to do with methods for assigning non-lettersymbols to modes, and arranging the spatial layout of each mode.

A first statistical measure to be taken into account is the probabilityof non-letter symbols. Some of these non-letter symbols, such aspunctuation marks and digits, are essential to communication and mayoccur with a frequency rivaling or exceeding those of letter symbols.These punctuation marks are candidates for inclusion in the primary orsecondary symbol set in any effective keyboard design. Next to beconsidered are correlations which arise from non-letter acting inconcert with other non-letter symbols. Some non-letter symbols haveconventional and conceptual relationships with other non-letter symbols,for example, the symbol (left parenthesis) is related to the symbol)(right parenthesis), as the two symbols act together to express meaning.The symbol . is related to the symbol , as the two symbols expresssimilar meanings (end of a phrase or sentence). These are examples ofglobal relationships, common to most uses of the language, in thesecases including languages such as English. There are other, more local,relationships which could be accounted for in keyboard designs forspecialized purposes, such as the relationship between : and / in theexpression :/ commonly used in site addresses on the World Wide Web(URLs or Universal Resource Locators).

Non-letter symbols may also have statistical, conventional, andconceptual relationships with letter symbols. For some symbols, it ispossible to analyze their statistical relationships with each other withreference to a corpus. For others, user studies are needed, orspecialized software to capture these symbols for statistical analysis,since the symbol may never appear in a text. Examples here are“backspace”, “page up”, and other symbols which are used to edit,examine, or otherwise manipulate a text.

Given reference statistics constructed in this way, a next step in theassignment of symbols to modes is to arrange the symbols in such a waythat the statistical, conventional, and conceptual relationships arebest satisfied. A further constraint which could be taken into accountis the mnemonic potential of the arrangement. Preferably, all symbolsare arranged within and across modes in a way that “makes sense”, thatis, that the symbol pattern is simple, familiar, preferably visuallywell structured. Even well-trained touch typists may revert to a visualscanning mode to find infrequently used symbols on a keyboard. Thus,mnemonic potential may be the overriding concern in the arrangement ofmodes devoted to less-frequently used symbols. It is to be appreciatedthat mnemonic potential can be quantified using experimental protocolsfor memorization tasks well-known to psychologists.

To illustrate the approach, an example layout of letter symbols [a-z],digits, and the 32 nonletter symbols˜!@#$%^&*( )_-+={[]|\:;″'<,>.?/

found on a standard keyboard is provided. This arrangement comprisesthree mode changing keys, and 3 modes, each mode containing 16 symbolkeys, as shown in FIG. 36A-C. This layout is designed for PALM PILOTclass machines. It has not been shown to be optimal by psychologicaltesting.

The first mode (FIG. 36A) contains an ambiguous code for the letters, aspace/backspace key, a basic punctuation key, and a key for shiftingmodes in either the forward or the backward directions.

The second mode (FIG. 36B) contains keys for the digits, and certainpunctuation marks, arranged so that this mode can function either as atelephone, or as a rudimentary calculator/numeric keypad.

The third mode (FIG. 36C) contains additional punctuation marks,arranged so that 1) a shift key relates symbols with related meanings,such as open and closed parentheses, or, if there is no related meaning,related symbol shapes, as an aid to remember the symbol placements. Aconvention is applied whereby “hard” symbols, more angular symbols, areon the left, while “soft” symbols, more curved symbols, are on theright. Since all or most keys have exactly two symbols, ergonomicdisambiguation mechanisms as described above can operate in each mode.

-   Selectable transparency of the keyboard Currently, typically    implementations of a keyboard displayed on a touch-screen device in    the PALM PILOT class comprise a keyboard occupying one part of the    screen, while the rest of the screen is devoted to an application    program which receives input from the keyboard, such as an address    book application. Since display real estate in such devices is    extremely limited, sharing the display between keyboard and    application program results in both keyboard and application program    being very small. Keyboards used in present devices are not meant to    be practically touch typable, nor could they be, given their    extremely small size. However, application of the methods of this    invention produces keyboards which are small enough to be touch    typable, even in the limited environment of the touch screen of a    personal digital assistant. The important observation is that since    the keyboard is touch-typable, it does not have to be displayed to    the user. The user's fingers “know” where the keys are, without the    user having to see them. Thus the keyboard can be made transparent,    occupying the entire touch screen, while the application program can    be opaque, and also occupy the entire touch screen. Displayed in    this way, the user types directly on the application program to    produce input to it. In FIG. 35 a keyboard displayed in this way    1003 is shown with an application program 1002 in this case a    drawing program displaying a drawing. Since it is impossible to draw    a transparent keyboard, the keyboard is indicated in this figure in    a shade of gray, while the application program is shown in black.    Indeed, it would be possible to allow the user to select the level    of transparency of the keyboard, for example, as a function of his    or her level of touch typing skill.

It has already been pointed out that different modes may contain symbolsof different levels of familiarity to the user. To account for thesedifferences, the transparency of the keyboard could also be adjusted asa function of mode, becoming increasingly less transparent as theunfamiliarity of the symbols in the mode increases. It is to be notedthat the same effect of distinguishing the keyboard for the applicationsprogram could be accomplished by adjusting other visual factors, such asthe color of the image, in addition to its transparency.

-   Hybrid Chording/Ambiguous Keyboards The important observation on    which this aspect of the present invention is based is that chording    patterns which require but two keys to be activated substantially    simultaneously, such as the chording pattern which causes a Qwerty    keyboard to encode capital letters, are readily learnable and can    therefore be adopted by a large user community. However, the prior    art has proven that chording patterns any more complex than this    will not become generally accepted.

It has been noted that there are two main prior-art approaches towardtypable devices with a small number of keys: chording methods andambiguous-code methods. One aspect of the present invention is to teachhow to synergistically combine these two methods.

We can distinguish two kinds of chording methods 1) methods in which akey or keys are reserved for the function of forming chords, an exampleis the familiar shift key used for keying uppercase letters by achording combination of the shift key with a letter key, and we willgenerally refer to such keys as shift keys, 2) methods in which chordsare formed by activating a plurality of letter keys substantiallysimultaneously. In the present embodiment the first of these methods isused, in a subsequent embodiment, the second of these methods is used.

The essential insight of this aspect of this invention is thatsubstantially simultaneous activation of a pair of input means isreadily unified into a single gesture by a human user. Thus, a pair ofkeystrokes is no or little more difficult to master than a singlekeystroke, yet, a pair of keystrokes contains substantially moreinformation than a single keystroke, and thus can be used to createeasily operable, low-ambiguity codes and typable devices based on thesecodes. Thus, to make the keyboard easy to learn, chords must require nomore than a pair of keys to be activated substantially simultaneously.Such an ambiguous code which uses a maximum of two keystrokes (encodingsymbols) to encode any given letter (decoding symbol) will be referredto as a max-2 ambiguous code, (see FIG. 50). In this embodiment, one ofthe pair being a key reserved for forming chords. Such an encodingsymbol will be referred to as a combining encoding symbol, see FIG. 51),and the other encoding symbol of the pair is generated by a keycorresponding to at least one decoding symbol. Such a key will bereferred to as a decoding-symbol-assigned key or letter-assigned key.Rare symbols may still require more than two keys to be activatedsubstantially simultaneously, and very frequent symbols could beassociated with a single input means without exceeding the scope of thisinvention.

It is preferred that at least one of the decoding symbols is a stronglycorrelated symbol. In this way, should a chord be formed improperly,when a shift key is activated when it should not be or not activatedwhen it should be, the disambiguation software may be able to correctfor this error.

Thus, while chording and ambiguous codes could a priori be combined inany number of ways, according to the teachings of this embodiment,preferred combinations are such that

no more than 2 input means need be substantially simultaneouslyactivated in order to encode any substantially probable symbol. That is,a max-2 ambiguous code is preferred, see FIG. 50.

-   -   lookup error and/or query error is optimized,    -   chording is accomplished using a mode-shift key, that is, a        combining encoding symbol,    -   (preferably) such that the probability of using the mode-shift,        key is minimized, that is, combining encoding symbol plus        decoding-symbol-assigned-key combinations are less frequently        activated than decoding-symbol-assigned keys in isolation.

When chording and ambiguous-code methods are combined according to theseteachings, surprising and synergistic results are obtained as will bedemonstrated by the present embodiment in which a hybridchording/ambiguous-code method is applied to a telephone embodying thestandard ambiguous code. We have already seen that the standardambiguous code has rather poor lookup error and query error rate. It istherefore quite extraordinary that using a hybrid method a keyboardbased on the standard ambiguous code can be made (level C) stronglytouch typable, and the standard ambiguous code with 6 effective keys istransformed into a code with 13 effective keys The objects of thisembodiment are to produce a keyboard which is strongly touch typable,fully compatible with standard telephones embodying the standardambiguous code,

-   -   simple to operate,    -   simple to learn,    -   and uses a minimal number of keying gestures.

A standard telephone embodying the standard ambiguous code is shown inFIG. 38. It is seen that a plurality of keys 10000 are used to encodeletters and digits, there are eight of these. Two keys 10001, 10002encode only digits, and two keys 10003,10004 encode the non-lettersymbols * and # respectively. In this embodiment, one of the keysselected from the group consisting of 10001, 10002, 10003, 10004 will beused as a mode-changing key, generating a combining encoding symbol,preferable key 10001 encoding the digit 1. This selected key will bereferred to as the shift key, for reasons which will become evident,though any means of generating a combining encoding symbol could beused. Key 10001 can be conveniently activated by the thumb of the lefthand while the telephone is held in the left hand, while the right handis used to activate the other keys. For an embodiment in which the rightthumb is used to active the shift key while the telephone is held in theright hand, key 10004 can be used as the shift key.

For each of the keys in the plurality 10000 the corresponding letterswill be divided into two subsets, which will be referred to as the shiftset and the nonshift set respectively. That is, the shift set containsmax-2 sequences of encoding symbols which consist of one combiningencoding symbol and one key-assigned encoding symbol, whereas thenon-shift set contains a single key-assigned encoding symbol. Note thatelements of both shift- and non-shift sets of encoding symbol sequencescould correspond to more than one decoding symbol under the ambiguouscode.

-   Letters will be assigned to the (shift, nonshift) sets so that    -   lookup error is minimized,    -   queries are minimized,    -   one of the sets, without loss of generality, the shift set,        contains exactly one letter per key, That is, we make the        further limitation that the combining encoding symbol and        key-assigned encoding symbol pairs in the shift set are        unambiguously mapped to a single decoding symbol so that when        the pair of encoding symbols is input the associated decoding        symbol is explicitly and unambiguously selected for output, see        FIGS. 51 and 52    -   the probability of activating the shift key is minimized.

As is usually the case, simultaneous optimization with respect to lookuperror rate, query error rate, and other constraints implies compromise.For instance, one could potentially achieve better lookup error ratesand query error rates by removing the limitation just made that one ofthe (shift, nonshift) sets is mapped to a single decoding symbol, sothat only a single letter per key and allow, rather, the number ofletters in the shift set to vary from key to key. However, regularity ofthe partition into shift and non-shift sets makes the keyboard easier tolearn, a constraint which is here given high priority. Learnabilitycould be further improved by selecting the singletons such that thecollection of singletons is easy to remember, perhaps by mnemonic. Thisselection, however, could compromise lookup error rates and query errorrates.

There are 11664 different pairs of shift/non-shift sets obeying theconstraint that the shift set contains but one letter per key. Thisnumber is small enough that all possibilities can be tested for theirproperties.

The results of testing all such codes are shown in FIG. 39, where lookuperror rate is plotted vs. query error rate, for all 11664 codes, as wellas the standard ambiguous code SAC. It is to be noted that while all ofthe codes are belief than the standard ambiguous code, most are belterby a small multiple. However, this distribution is quite large, and thebest code CEHLNSTY with a lookup error rate of 431 words/lookup errorand query error rate of 21 words/query is 15 times better than thestandard ambiguous code in terms of lookup error and 10 times better interms of query error. This best code is abC dEf gHi jkL mNo pqrS TuvwxYz where the elements of the shift set are written with uppercaseletters. It is to be emphasized again that this code is the best codewith respect to our reference statistics, other statistics may yieldother best codes, though it appears to be among the best for statisticsdrawn from many alternate corpora of English. It should be furtherappreciated that the same hybrid chording/ambiguous code method could beapplied to arbitrary ambiguous codes in which the underlying ambiguouscode is not constrained to be the standard ambiguous code, indeed is notconstrained to be in alphabetic ordering, or only 8 keys, or with aneven-as-possible partition. By allowing more freedom to choose codes,hybrid chording/ambiguous codes can be found of such high quality interms of lookup error rate and query error rate that other constraints,such as minimizing use of the shift key, could be profitably combinedwith optimization of lookup error rate and query error rate. Theseoptimizations are beyond the scope of the present embodiment, whichseeks full compatibility with existing telephones, they are however,well within the scope of the present invention.

To further facilitate the learnability and operability of this keyboard,the letters which form the shift set are preferably represented on thecorresponding key using an uppercase letter, while the letters in thenonshift set are represented as a lowercase letter, as shown in FIG. 38.Alternately, the two sets could be indicated by lettering varying insize, color, typeface etc.

Use of this device is simple. When the text to be typed contains aletter in the shift set, then the shift key must be operatedsubstantially simultaneously with the corresponding letter key, thisletter will be represented unambiguously. By contrast, when a letter inthe nonshift set is required, the corresponding letter key is operated,and the letter is represented ambiguously.

In view of the teachings of this invention, it will be appreciated thatthe disambiguation mechanism corresponding to this embodiment could bephysically located within the telephone, at the sending end of thecommunication, and or at the receiving end of the communication, forinstance at a central computer which the user contacts by telephone.

As we have seen, on the standard telephone keypad there are 4 keysavailable to encode non-letter information such as mode changes. Usingthe method of synthesized encoding symbols described above, the numberof non-letter symbols encodable using a telephone keypad can be furtherincreased. In particular, added shift keys can be provided if even lowerlevels of ambiguity are required. For instance, with 4 shift keys, eachassociated to one letter on each letter key, totally disambiguous textentry can be achieved, albeit while increasing the number of keystrokesper letter. In short, many associations of subsets of decoding symbolswith shift keys can be imagined. One particular class of assignments isconsidered in a later section on internationalization of theseteachings, up to now described in detail mainly with respect to English.

It will be appreciated that using the shift key in combination with theremaining non-letter keys, in the preferred arrangement the *, # and 0keys, can be used to encode at least 6 non-letter symbols, such aspunctuation symbols, mode-shift symbols, and the like.

-   Error correction using the standard ambiguous code Especially when    used by a novice user, the keyboard of the present embodiment could    be operated in such a manner that the shift key is pressed at times    when it should not be to encode the in tended text, and at other    times the shift key will not be pressed when it should be. Often,    such a manipulation will result in a meaningless decoding if the    disambiguation device is expecting correctly typed encoding    sequences in the hybrid chording/ambiguous code. In these cases,    rather than issuing a query, an alternate disambiguation can be    attempted in which the shift key activation is ignored, and the    encoding sequence is interpreted as being an encoding sequence in    the standard ambiguous code. Often, this interpretation will recover    the text intended by the user.

It is to be noted that in the device shown in FIG. 38 a stronglycorrelated symbol (space) is paired on the same key with a weakly oruncorrelated symbol (backspace). This pairing potentially allowsdisambiguation software to correct errors in which (space) is meant but(backspace) keyed by the user, or vice versa.

-   Touch-typing-oriented querying It is preferable in this embodiment    to use the selected shift key as the scroll key for querying, when    querying is permitted, as described above. It will be appreciated    that whether the key functions as a shift key or a scroll key at any    given moment can be determined automatically given the appropriate    software. When the device is in querying mode the key functions as a    scroll key, and otherwise functions as a shift key.-   Alternate placement of shift keys Referring again to FIG. 38, we    note that this embodiment has been designed to be operable using    existing, standard, telephones. If telephones are manufactured with    use of this embodiment in mind, they are preferably equipped with    additional key or keys 1005 to function as the shift key. It is    preferred to place these additional keys on the sides of the    telephone, where they can be actuated by the thumb of the hand    holding the telephone; such a placement is shown in FIG. 38.    Additional keys to be actuated by the fingers of the hand holding    the telephone (either the left or the right hand) may also be used    10006.-   Culling infrequent words in queries It is often the case that a very    frequent word is ambiguous with a very infrequent word. For    instance, in the case of CEHLNSTY for English, the very frequent    word “for” is ambiguous with the very infrequent word “fop”. By    eliminating these very infrequent words from the dictionary, the    effective query error rate can be improved with very little effect    on how well that dictionary represents the language in question. For    instance, the query error rate for CEHLNSTY can be improved to 1    query every 46 words, by eliminating words whose total probability    is less than one part in 50 thousand. This culling can be achieved    for instance by application of a “gap factor” given by the ratio    between two words in the query, e.g. the most frequent and the least    frequent. If, for instance, the gap factor is set to 500, the    distribution of FIG. 39 is obtained, two codes, the standard    ambiguous code (SAC) and the CEHLNSTY code are particularly pointed    out in this drawing.-   Internationalization There are two main issues in    internationalization of the present embodiment, both of which are    readily solved by a person skilled in the art in application of the    teachings of this invention. These are 1) handling accents, and 2)    creation of generalized codes which are applicable to many languages    at once. Both of these issues will be briefly discussed.-   Handling accents. Many languages are written with letters which may    appear in both an accented and an unaccented form. For example, in    French, “e” may be written as “e”, “è”, or “é”. It is generally    important to distinguish these accented letters. Without accents,    for instance, the word “èlève” (meaning “student”) can be ambiguous    with the word “èlevé” (meaning “raised”). One natural approach is to    use another shift key, which we can call an accent-shift key which    has the function of selecting an accented version of a letter when    used in combination with a key encoding that letter. For instance,    to treat French using CEHLNSTY, we can key the accent shift key in    combination with the “def” key to encode either “e” or “'e”, and    then rely on a disambiguation mechanism to decide which of these two    accents is appropriate for a given word. Using this approach, we    find that with some set of word-frequency statistics for French, a    (lookup, query) rate of (38,3) for CEHLNSTY without an accent-shift    key, but (584,24) with an accent shift key. For the telephone    keypad, any of the keys on the bottom row could be used as an accent    shift key, for example. In specially built keypads, an additional    key could be provided to supply the accent-shift function. For    ergonomic reasons, it is preferable that this accent-shift key be    operated in a manner similar to the way the usual shift key is    operated, e.g. such that thumb motion in one direction is used to    encode a regular shift operation, while thumb motion in an opposite    direction is used to encode the accent-shift operation.-   Multi-Language Ambiguous Codes Since the statistics of one language    are typically different from the statistics of another language, a    code which is substantially optimal with respect to one language may    not be substantially optimal with respect to another language. A    code which is strongly touch typable with respect to one language    may not be strongly touch typable with respect to another language.

For example, CEHLNSTY, optimized for English, performs less well forFrench than a code specifically chosen for its optimality with respectto French. In this particular example, CEHLNSTY remains strongly touchtypable with respect French, though this will not be the case withrespect to all languages.

In order to gain economies of scale, manufacturers may wish to produce asingle machine operable in many local linguistic environments. Since atypable device, for instance, a mobile phone, may preferably have keyslabeled with the ambiguous code for which it is designed, it is usefulto have a single code which applies to many languages, so that thislabeling can be done in the same way for all machines in a productionrun, regardless of the target linguistic community.

Applying exactly the same techniques as have been already described, itis possible to produce ambiguous codes which are simultaneouslyoptimized with respect to several different languages. In amulti-language optimization method, the step of weighting constraintswith respect to each other can include as a sub-step the step ofweighting multiple languages with respect to each other. Differentweighting schemes are appropriate in different circumstances. Forinstance, one may choose to simultaneously optimize with respect tostatistics of English and German, and yet weight performance of the codewith respect to English as more important than performance with respectto German.

A preferred weighting method is one in which the minimum performance ismaximized, such a procedure will be referred to as a mini-max procedure.

Consider optimizing with respect to a set of languages l1, l2, . . . ,ln, and a set of ergonomic constraints, e1, e2, . . . , em. Given twoambiguous codes c1, c2, and for each constraint em, we rate c1 as betterthan c2 if for c1 the minimum of em over the languages ln is greaterthan the minimum of em over the languages ln for c2. When severalconstraints must be optimized against, it may happen that one code isbetter than another in the mini-max sense with respect to oneconstraint, but worse with respect to another constraint. In this casethe constraints must be weighted with respect to each other as hasalready been described in detail.

As an example of these teachings, consider optimizing with respect tolookup error and query error for a set of languages. In this examplewill we allow non-alphabetic orderings, and use 8 regular input means,and a auxiliary input means and an accent-shift auxiliary input means,so that the 8 regular input means can be used in combination with one ofthe auxiliary input means in a hybrid chording/ambiguous code embodimentas has been previously described.

First consider optimizing with respect to the set of languagesconsisting of French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, each languagerepresented by a set of reference statistics.

Using the directed random walk method, one readily finds codes such asjoz m bhx a kn r pw d iy l gq t ev c fu s with (lookup error rate, queryerror rate) of (3250,265), (11400,3800), (4720,505), and (6280,400) withrespect to French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish respectively. Thiscode has relatively poor performance on Dutch, English, and German, withvalues of (65,4.8),(93,10), and (360,13) respectively.

Using a similar amount of computing time, but optimizing now withrespect to Dutch, English, and German, one can find codes such as cjk rbiy l fv e mo a sz p hx g to d qw n which yields (1220,44), (816,44),(480,47) on these languages respectively. This same code yields(253,20),(306,50),(525,36), (4236,272) for French, Italian, Portugueseand Spanish respectively. And while these results are respectable forthe out of sample languages, they are not nearly as good as the resultsobtained when ambiguity with respect to these languages is explicitlyoptimized. These results suggest that the more different the languagesare from each other, the less performance on one language generalizes toperformance on another language.

In practical circumstances, the decision as to which languages toinclude in a multi-language optimization scheme are more commercial thenconceptual. The important inventive concept taught by this disclosure isthat even the minimal performance over the selected languages should besuch that the code is should be typable. In the cases examined above,optimization with respect to French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanishdiscovered a code which is level C strongly touch typable with respectto these languages, but the minimal performance is barely level Astrongly touch typable with respect to Dutch, English, and German.

-   Strongly touch typable handheld device which is typable using one    hand. In the hybrid chording/ambiguous code embodiment described    above, it was shown how a distinguished input means (combining    encoding symbol) can be used to form chords with input means    encoding ambiguously coded symbols (decoding symbol-assigned    encoding symbols) in order to reduce the ambiguity of the overall    system. This present embodiment shows how decoding-symbol-assigned    encoding symbols can be used both for chord formation and for    encoding ambiguously encoded symbols. That is, a given encoding    symbol can play the role of a combining encoding symbol and of a    decoding-symbol-assigned encoding symbol. This permits the ambiguous    code to be expressed as a multi-level code: a first sequence of    encoding symbols serves to select a first subset of decoding    symbols, a second sequence of encoding symbols serves to select a    second subset of decoding symbols, and so on. Preferably, the second    subset is a subset of the first subset, the third subset a subset of    the second subset (and thus a subset of the first subset), and so    on. This is a “divide and conquer” approach, as such well known to    those in the art. However, it is not been heretofore understood    that a) While it is typical in a divide-and-conquer approach that    the final subsets contain unique solutions, the number of successive    subdivisions of the set of symbols can be limited by making the    smallest subsets contain more than one symbol, and these smallest    subsets can be used to define an ambiguous code, nor b) that the    manner of subdivision can be chosen so as to minimize the ambiguity    (lookup error and or query error) of the final ambiguous code, nor    that c) ambiguity reduction can be optimized while simultaneously    optimizing other constraints, such as conservation of convention,    nor d) that the transition between levels in the hierarchy can be    accomplished with chords consisting of pairs of key presses only,    where elements of the pair can be combining encoding symbols and/or    decoding-symbol-assigned encoding symbols, depending on context

A concrete manifestation of these discoveries will now be described indetail, with reference to FIGS. 39 to 47. It will be understood thatthis is but one of an infinite number of devices that can be builtaccording to the teachings of this invention: any typable device whichrelies on a divide and conquer approach to code construction, whileminimizing ambiguity and/or some other constraint such as adherence toconvention, fits well within the scope of this embodiment.

This embodiment is a device which is strongly touch-typable with asingle hand. It has the additional desirable characteristics of

-   1) permitting a fully unambiguous text-entry mode.    -   2) permitting a substantially optimal, strongly touch typable,        ambiguous text-entry mode.    -   3) permitting a minimal-keystroke mode for data-retrieval.    -   4) is such that the above three modes are maximally compatible.

Preferably, this device can be configured such that, in addition to theabove-stated constraints, a new constraint, scan time, is alsooptimized. Optimization of scan time will be discussed in a sectionbelow.

An overview of the method for constructing a typable device based onmulti-level ambiguous codes is described in reference to FIG. 39.

In the first step 150, a set of second-level decoding symbols areselected. These are the symbols that are to be represented by theambiguous code, and might include, for example for English, the lettersa through z.

In the next step 151, a constraint is selected for the over-allmulti-level code. This constraint could be, for example, strong touchtypability in general or lookup error or query error alone. In general,many constraints of the multi-level code could be simultaneouslyselected. In the next step 152, the second-level decoding symbols aredivided into subsets. An encoding symbol is assigned to eachsecond-level subset in such a way that the overall code is optimizedwith respect to the selected constraints. Up to this point, theconstruction is not different from the construction of any optimizedambiguous code. However, there may be additional constraints, forinstance on the allowed number of encoding symbols, such that the nextstep of construction can be executed. In this next step 153, thesecond-level encoding symbols are collected into groups. These groupsare treated as decoding symbols for a first-level ambiguous code.Otherwise said, the encoding symbols of the second-level code becomedecoding symbols for the first-level code. Hence, a first-level encodingsymbol is assigned to each group, forming a first-level ambiguous code.Additional optimization of constraints can be performed in theassignment of second-level symbols into groups. In general, each levelin a multi-level code can be optimized with respect to differentconstraints. These constraints may be the same, or may be differentfrom, the constraints with respect to which the over-all multi-levelcode is optimized. In the final step 154, the multi-level code thusconstructed is embodied in a typable device.

The construction of the second-level code was just described asproceeding the construction of the first-level code. When a deviceembodying a multi-level code is used, the codes are applied in thereverse of the order in which they were constructed: first an element ofthe first-level code is selected by a first user activation of thekeyboard, then an element of the second-level code is selected by asecond user activation of the keyboard.

This is the essence of the divide-and-conquer approach. It will beevident to one skilled in the art that this construction could becontinued in the same way to include third- and higher-level codes.

In practice, properties of each level of the multi-level code must besimultaneously optimized to achieve desired properties of the over-allmulti-level code. The present embodiment is presented to concretelyillustrate how this simultaneous optimization can be planned andexecuted.

The overview of the method of construction of this embodiment is shownin FIG. 40. To help exhibit the procedure in full generality, threeconstraints are selected for the over-all multi-level code, twoconstraints for the first-level code and three for the second-level codewhich together comprise the multi-level code. In this embodiment thethree constraints applied to the multi-level code as a whole are strongtouch typability, optimized query error, and optimized lookup error. Thefirst-level code is optimized relative to anatomic fidelity, andalphabetic ordering, and the second-level code is optimized relative toevenness of partition, anatomic fidelity,. and substantial alphabeticordering.

The first step 3100 in the construction of this embodiment is theselection of (second-level) decoding symbols. These are the letters a-z.Then strong touch typability, optimization of query error, andoptimization of lookup error are selected as constraints for themulti-level code in steps 3101, 3102, and 3103 respectively. Then, instep 3104, anatomic fidelity is selected as a constraint. Since thisdevice is meant to be typable using the fingers of the hand holding thedevice, anatomic fidelity is maximized when there are 4 input means and4 corresponding first-level encoding symbols, one for each finger.

Anatomic fidelity is chosen as a constraint for the second-level code instep 3105. Each encoding symbols in the first-level code will correspondto several encoding symbols for the second-level code. Anatomic fidelityof the second-level code is maximized if each of the 4 first-levelsymbols corresponds to 4 second-level encoding symbols, so the number ofsecond-level encoding symbols should be 16 for anatomic fidelity to bemaximized. 16 second-level encoding symbols can be associated withsecond-level decoding symbols such that evenness of partition ismaximized if the 26 second-level decoding symbols are distributed overthe second-level encoding symbols such that either 1 or 2 second-leveldecoding symbols are associated with each of the 16 second-levelencoding symbols. This distribution implies, in turn, that between 4 and8 second-level decoding symbols will be ultimately associated with eachof the 4 first-level decoding symbols.

Next, in step 3106, alphabetic ordering is selected as a constraint forthe first-level code. Optimizing with respect to this constraintrequires simultaneous optimization of both the first- and second-levelcodes. What is required is that the letters a-z must be displayable inalphabetic order on the displays corresponding to the input meansassociated with each finger respectively. Since these displays arearranged in order of the fingers, this implies in turn that letters fromthe first part of the alphabet must be associated to second-leveldecoding symbols which are in turn associated to the first-levelencoding symbol which is associated to input means associated to thefirst finger. In the same way, a second group of letters, following thefirst group in alphabetic order, must be assigned to second-levelencoding symbols associated to the first-order encoding symbolassociated with the input means associated to the next finger, and so onfor the other two first-level encoding symbols. Optimizing with respectto alphabetic ordering thus corresponds to choosing an ordered partitionof the 26 letters, in the same way as has been discussed for otherembodiments of this invention. This time, each of the 4 elements of theordered partition must have between 4 and 8 subelements, so that all ofthe constraints listed can simultaneously optimized. As will be shown inthe detailed description of the best mode for this embodiment, codeswith even-as-possible partitions, even for the first-level code, can befound, while optimizing as well with respect to all of the otherconstraints considered.

Finally, in step 3107, substantial alphabetic ordering is chosen as aconstraint of the second-level ambiguous code. This means that it shouldbe possible to lay out the letters as well as possible in alphabetordering, given all of the other constraints on the assignment ofletters to second-level encoding symbols. Divergences from strictalphabetic ordering can be measured in any number of ways, for instanceby the number of pairwise permutations required to bring a givenordering into strict alphabetic ordering.

In reference now to FIGS. 41-47, we describe a strongly touch typablehandheld device, typable using one hand, encoding at least the letters[a-z], and embodying a code constructed according to the above describedmethod. In order for a device built according to the present embodimentto be touch typable, the division of the symbols into subsets, subsetsof subsets, and so on must be fixed, that is, not changing depending forinstance on which symbols have been previously entered. This fixednesspertains only to the requirement of touch typability, and the teachingsof this invention could be applied in a broader context. For instance,allowing word completion mechanisms can significantly reduce the numberof keystrokes. But since the behavior of the word-completion mechanismis complex and difficult to predict, a machine with word-completion isnot in any strict sense touch-typable. Nonetheless, the sameoptimizations that lead to strongly touch typable codes lead toeffective word completion mechanisms, since the lower the ambiguity, thebetter word completion can be effected. Thus, augmenting a stronglytouch typable code with word-completion mechanism does not transport thedevice beyond the scope of the present invention.

For the present embodiment we make the further limitation that thesymbol-input typable part of the device must be able to be held in onehand, and be typable by the hand holding the device, and that hand only.To limit the requirement for digit motion, most of the symbols can beinput though sequences of manipulation of but 5 input means: 4 inputmeans operable by the fingers of the hand holding the device 2100-2103and 1 input means operated by the thumb of the hand holding the device2104. The device shown in FIG. 41 is meant to be held in the left hand;it is evident that the symmetric device designed to be held in the righthand or an ambidextrous device operable by either hand could also beconstructed.

Preferably, associated with each of the input means 2100-2103 is avisual display 2106-2109 showing the elements of the subset currentlyassociated with the given input means. Operating the input means selectsthe corresponding subset. The input means 2104 can be used to furtherrefine the subset selection and/or be used to select other subsets ofsymbols. For example, the single symbol “space” can be associated withthe input means 2104; this or other symbols associated with input means2104 can be preferably displayed on display means 2110. The letters[a-z] can be distributed over the 4 input means 2100-2103. Thedistribution of letters over the input means is preferably chosen so asto minimize the ambiguity (lookup error rate and/or query error rate) ofthe resulting code, while simultaneously adhering to the convention ofalphabetic ordering. This adherence aids the novice user in finding aneeded letter by simply scanning the candidate letters.

FIG. 42 shows an arrangement of the letters [a-z] in which the letters[a-f] are associated with the first input means 2100, [g-l] with thesecond input means 2101, [m-r] with the third input means 2102, andfinally [s-z] with the fourth input means 2103. These associationsconstitute first-level subsets in a first-level code. In general, itwill be preferred to associate 4-8 letters with each of these 4 inputmeans:

thereby the subset of letters associated to each input means can befurther subdivided into 4 subsets, each of which contains no more thantwo letters. The utility of this limitation will become evident shortly,and it will be evident to one skilled in the art how to extend theteachings of this embodiment to languages with a different number ofsymbols, and a different number of input means.

An example set of second-level subsets which divide the first-levelsubsets shown in FIG. 42 is shown in FIG. 43. FIG. 43 is a table of fourcolumns and four rows. The columns are labeled by the input meansactivated at the first step, the rows by the symbols associated to eachinput means at the second step. Thus, for instance, if input means 2100is first activated, then at the second step, the symbols ac will beassociated to input means 2100, be to the input means 2101, etc. Thisassignment is chosen to minimize lookup error and query error rates,given the constraints on subset size described above. The lookup errorand query error rates for this code are (1100,69) using our referencestatistics. It is to be noted very carefully that in this example, theletters in the first level subsets are arrangeable in alphabeticordering, but the letters in the second-level subsets are only partiallyarrangeable in alphabetic ordering. It was decided for this example toloosen the alphabet ordering constraint at the second level in order topermit better query and lookup rates, and to produce a code which is asstrongly touch typable as possible. This shows that alphabetic orderingcan be optimized, or not, just like any other constraint, and thatweighting of optimization properties can be different at differentlevels in a multi-level ambiguous code. The advantage, again, ofalphabetic ordering is that it reduces scan time, especially for noviceusers. Since the number of symbols displayed at the second level issmall, scan time is in any case small, and can be further reduced bymechanisms to be discussed presently.

To type a given desired letter, the user first activates one of theinput means 2100-2103 corresponding to first subset containing thedesired letter. The user then selects one of the second-level subsets byagain activating one of the input means 2100-2103 corresponding to a setof letters containing the desired letter. FIG. 44 shows an exampleoperation of the device in which the user types the letter e. Withreference to FIG. 42 we see that e is associated with input means 2100by the first level code. The user activates this input means, and thedisplay becomes that shown in FIG. 44. Now the letter e is associatedwith the input means 2101. When this input means is manipulated, theletter e is output. The same sequence of manipulations of input meansserves also to select the letter b, so the code is ambiguous. As in theother embodiments, which of the letters b or e is intended is determinedfrom context by a disambiguation mechanism. Words are entered bysuccessively selecting the required letters in this manner, andterminating the word by activation of the input means 2104 associatedwith the thumb, two-hand operation. It should be noted that since atwo-stroke method is used to encode each letter, and max-2 sequences ofencoding symbols are used this input method can form the basis of aone-hand/two-hand embodiment. More explicitly, if one hand is used toindicate the first stroke of each letter, and the second hand is used toindicate the second stroke of each letter, then first and second-strokeinformation could be input simultaneously. There are numerous physicalembodiments which could be based on this remark. For instance, the“fingering” mechanism of [4] could be the physical substrate upon whicha one-hand/two-hand embodiment could be based. The code proposed by [4]is based on motion sensors capable of sensing several positions perfinger, to encode each letter unambiguously. This requires relativelysophisticated sensors. However, using a two-handed variant of thepresent embodiment, simpler sensors could be used. These sensors wouldneed only record binary (up/down) information for each finger. Bothsoftware and hardware complexity could be reduced in this manner. Inaddition, a machine build according to the teachings of this inventionwould be simpler for the user to learn and operate.

-   Visual Cache Scan time is the time it takes to visually locate a    desired letter from a set of letters. The hunt-and-peck typist    visually scans the keyboard to find a next letter and then presses    the corresponding key. Scan time is determined by a number of    factors, including the user's familiarity with the layout of a    keyboard. The hunt-and-peck typist may know basically where the    desired key is, and is using visual scanning only for confirmation,    or precise localization. It is to improve scan time, through the    familiarity of typical users with an alphabetic ordering, that    alphabetic ordering was chosen for the first-level code of this    embodiment. In a variant of alphabetic ordering, certain letters are    selected from the group of letters on a given key for display in a    distinguished, selected area of the visual display associated with    the key. These letters are the most likely-to-be-selected letters at    any given moment, and placing them in a distinguished position makes    them easier to find. The principle is analogous to the cache used in    some computer processors to store recently-used data in registers    where they can be gotten at quickly, under the hypothesis that data    recently used is more likely to be used again. Here, letters are    placed in cache not on the basis of their recent use, but on the    basis of their likelihood to be used next, given the statistics of    the language. Still, the term “visual cache” seems appropriate.

One embodiment of a visual cache will now be described in the context ofthe current embodiment. It will be appreciated that this inventionpermits a wide variety of modifications without modification of itsessential quality, for instance, modifications in the size and locationof the cache, how the cache is organized, how it is labeled, and thelike.

From analysis of our standard statistics, we find that of the letters[a-f] associated to input means 2100 by the first-level code, “a” is themost likely to be the first letter of a word. Similarly, of the letters[g-l] associated to input means 2101 , “i” is the most likely to be thefirst letter of a word, “o” the most likely from [m-r] associated withinput means 2102, and “t” the most likely from the letters [s-z]associated to input means 2103.

By placing the letters a, i, o, t in a distinguished portion of thedisplay, for instance the upper-left hand corner of the display areaassociated with each input means. This makes these letters thefirst-encountered letters in a standard left-to-right, top-to-bottomvisual scan of each associated display. Preferably, other than thisselection of a single letter out of alphabetic order, alphabeticordering is maintained for the other letters in the subset. Thedistinction between the letter in cache and the rest of the letters canbe further marked by selecting a different color, size, style, etc. offont for the cached letter than for the rest of the letters.

Referring now to FIGS. 45 and 46, we see how this observation can beexploited to reduce scan time. FIG. 45 shows how the word “think” isentered without the use of a visual cache, and FIG. 46 shows the sameword entered using a visual cache. Thus, in FIG. 45, the letter “t” isentered by first activating the first input means 2103 corresponding tothe letter “t”. Before the first input means is activated, the displayas shown in the second column of the figure. Once 2103 is activated, thedisplay changes to that shown in the third column. When the input means2101 is then activated, the letter “t” is output. The displays changesimilarly as the other letters of the word “think” are entered.

In FIG. 46, the distinction between letters in and not in visual cacheis marked by writing letters in the visual cache in upper case letters,while letters not in visual cache are displayed using lower-caseletters. For our reference statistics, we find that 42 percent of firstletters of words are either a,i,o, or t. Thus 42 percent of the time auser beginning to enter a word will find the required letter immediatelyin cache.

As a word is entered the most-likely next letter changes as context iscreated by the entering of the word. Thus, the letter selected to becached should change as a word is entered, and will depend on which wordis being entered.

In the case of the word “think” The letter “t” is found in visual cacheboth before activation of the first input means, and before activationof the second input means, as shown in the first four rows of FIG. 46,each row corresponding to an input means display. Once “t” has beenselected. The letters in visual cache are a, h, o, w, as shown in thesecond set of 4 rows in FIG. 46. After the first input means (inputmeans 2101) is selected to begin entering the letter “h”, there are onlytwo possible letters which form parts of words according to thereference statistics, these are the letters “h” and “i”, both of theseappear in visual cache in the second display. Continuing in this way forthe letters, i, n, k, we find that the desired letter is always invisual cache for this word. Indeed, after the first input meansmanipulation for entering the letter “i”, there is only one possibleletter which could have been intended if the user is in fact entering aword in the database. In this case, then, a second input meansmanipulation is redundant, and the letter “i” could be outputimmediately after the first input means manipulation.

Explicit disambiguation and inputting of additional symbols. As hasalready been pointed out, it is generally desirable to provide acompletely unambiguous method for inputting symbols in a typable devicebased on ambiguous codes. In the present embodiment, one simple way toprovide unambiguous input is by provision of an additional unambiguousinput means 2105 shown in FIG. 41 in a position where it is easilyactivatable by the thumb, which is the preferred position. Otherpositions, however, could be chosen.

In the present embodiment, it was chosen to limit the size ofsecond-level subsets to at most 2 symbols. Thus the disambiguationmechanism will always either choose the desired symbol correctly, or itwill chose the other, incorrect, symbol to which it is paired. Anydisambiguation software could generate a signal to indicate which of thetwo symbols it would choose were the corresponding input means to beselected by the user. This signal could be used to provide feedback tothe user, for instance by highlighting the letter to be chosen. If theletter to be chosen is not the desired letter, the user has the optionof activating the explicit disambiguation input means 2105 shown in FIG.41 to force the choice of the other, non- highlighted symbol.

An example use of this unambiguous text entry mechanism is shown in FIG.47. As in FIGS. 45 and 46, this figure shows how the word “think” isentered. Here the fourth column gives the letter that would be outputwere the unambiguous input means 2105 to be activated after activationof the first and second input means used to enter the letters of theword “think”. For example, if input means 2103 and then input means 2101had been activated to enter the letter “t”, then further activation ofinput means 2105 would select the letter “u”. Then “u” would become thefirst letter of the word. All possible letters can be enteredunambiguously in this way. When the second-level subsets contain but oneletter, this one letter will be entered unambiguously even withoutactivation of the input means 2105, and thus input means 2105 isinapplicable. For the given code, the letters d, f, h, l, n, and p arealways entered unambiguously.

-   Strong Touch Typability: Measurement and Thresholds Strong touch    typability is a new, inventive concept describing a definite class    of machines. The breadth of this concept has been pointed out    through a variety of embodiments placed near the boundaries of this    class, and thus indicating its extent.

To further add definiteness to the disclosure of strong touchtypability, this section will present an alternative numericalcharacterization of strong touch typability which will allow the strongtouch typability of any ambiguous code to be measured, and to thusdecide if that code falls within the scope of this invention or not.

-   Language Statistics It has already been mentioned that representing    a language in terms of a corpus of text is a topic of research among    linguists. For the sake of numerical definiteness, define a    representative corpus as a collection of at least 10 million words    drawn at random from a general-interest newspaper in the target    language.-   Key Number We need to define three kinds of key numbers: physical    key number, chording key number and effective key number. Physical    key number: the number of inputs used to encode symbols. A minimal    Qwerty keyboard has 26 keys labeled with a letter, a shift key and a    space key, it thus has a physical key number of 28. Chording key    number: the number of distinct combinations of keys which encode    symbols. For the minimal Qwerty keyboard, the shift key can be    combined with any of the letter keys to form a capital letter,    therefore this keyboard has a chording key number of 28+26−1=53,    since the shift key alone does not encode any symbols. Otherwise    said, a keyboard which is fully equivalent to the minimal Qwerty    keyboard could be build with 53 physical keys, each one encoding a    single symbol, either an upper case or a lower case letter. Indeed,    some early typewriters were of this structure.-   Effective key number: Given a set of symbols to represent in an    ambiguous code, a set of language statistics, and a number of    physical keys, P, there exists an optimal ambiguous code which has    the best possible lookup and query error rates, given that key    number is the only constraint on the code. Let us call these rates    Pl and Pq respectively. Any ambiguous code on any number of physical    keys will have an effective key number of P if its lookup rate and    query error rate are equal to Pl and Pq respectively. It is    impossible for a keyboard with a physical number of keys less than P    to support an ambiguous code with an effective key number equal to    or greater than P. It is perfectly possible, and usually the case,    that an ambiguous code on a physical number of keys P has an    effective key number less than P. It is an experimental observation    that the lookup error rates and query error rates of substantially    optimal ambiguous codes are substantially related by a power law, as    shown for example, by the experimental results of FIG. 11. Here it    is shown that for English, the log of the substantially optimal    query error rate is linearly related to the log of the substantially    optimal lookup rate.

This observation allows us to define a single number relating the lookuperror rate and query error rate of a code: the projection of the point(lookup error rate, query error rate) of the code onto the best-fit linein a log-log plot.

Consider, for example, the standard ambiguous code. This code has(lookup error rate, query error rate) of (29,2.2). Projecting this pointonto the best-fit line of FIG. 11 and linearly interpolating, we findthe value 5.96, which is thus the effective key number of the standardambiguous code. Though the standard ambiguous code is defined on 8physical keys (and with a chording key number also of 8, since nochording is involved), it is equivalent in ambiguity to a substantialoptimal code on 5.96 physical (or chording) keys. Of course fractionalphysical keys are not possible in practice, but these results indicatethat a substantially optimal code on 6 keys could be found which haslookup error rates and query error rates better than the standardambiguous code.

These considerations allow us to define a precise, albeit arbitrary,numerical threshold for substantial optimality of combined lookup errorrate and query error rate: a code will be said to be substantial optimalwith respect to these rates if its effective key number is within 0.01of its chording key number, if there are no other ergonomic constraintson the system. We can also define a precise, albeit arbitrary, thresholdfor strong touch typability: an ambiguous code for English can bedefined as strongly touch typable if its effective key number is atleast 10. We can extend this definition to other languages by requiringthat for a code to be strongly touch typable, it must have a lookuperror rate and a query error rate greater than or equal to those of astrongly touch typable code for English. Since the effective key numberof the standard ambiguous code is less than 10, it is not strongly touchtypable by the considerations of this section.

By measuring the effective key number, any ambiguous code can bescreened for possession of the strong touch typability property. Forinstance, the hybrid chording/ambiguous code: ab c df e gi h jk l mo npqr s uv t wxz y discussed above has 9 physical keys: the 8 letter keysof the standard telephone keypad plus 1 shift key. It has a chording keynumber of 16; it is equivalent to an ambiguous code on 16 independentkeys with no shift key. Without application of a gap factor, its(lookup,query) error rates are (431,21) corresponding to a effective keynumber of 12.8. With a gap factor of 500, this improves to (440,46),corresponding to a effective key number of 13.75. With or without a gapfactor, this code is strongly touch typable by the considerations ofthis section. It should be noted that for this code the effective keynumber is less than the chording key number, still, this code issubstantially optimal given the additional constraint of alphabeticordering. In the same way, the one-handed hybrid chording/ambiguous codeembodiment has a code with (lookup, query) rates of (1100,69), yieldingan effective key number of 15, though its physical key number is 4 andits chording key number is 16. It is a strongly touch typable code, andthe difference between the chording key number and effective key numberis due to the additional constraint of alphabetic ordering of thefirst-level code. Taking into account this additional constraint, thecode is substantially optimal. By contrast, the 14-physical key code ofSugimoto U.S. Pat. No. 5,847,697, pn gt cr zk wj a e hi so ud xf ym vlqb, has (lookup, query) rates of (105,4), and an effective key number of8.47. This code is neither substantially optimal nor strongly touchtypable, despite the fact that its physical number of keys is greaterthan 10.

Although illustrative embodiments of the present invention have beendescribed herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, it is tobe understood that the invention is not limited to those preciseembodiments, and that various other changes and modifications may beeffected therein by one skilled in the art without departing from thescope of the invention.

Literature Cited

-   [1]U.S. Pat. No. 5,847,697 Single-handed keyboard having keys with    multiple characters and character ambiguity resolution logic,    Masaktsu Sugimoto, Dec. 8, 1998.-   [2] U.S. Pat. No. 5,818,437 Reduced keyboard disambiguating    computer. Grover et al. Oct. 6, 1998-   [3] U.S. Pat. No. 5,953,541, Disambiguating system for    disambiguating ambiguous input sequences by displaying objects    associated with the generated input sequences in the order of    decreasing frequency of use, King et al. Sep. 14, 1999.-   [4] “Body Coupled Fingering”: Wireless Wearable Keyboard, CHI 97    Electronic Publications: Papers, by FUKUMOTO, Masaaki and TONOMURA,    Yoshinobu NTT Human Interface Laboratories 1—1 Hikari-no-oka,    Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken, 239 JAPAN web reference:    http://www.acm.org/turing/sigs/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/fkm.htm#U21.

1. An apparatus comprising: encoding symbols; decoding symbols; akeyboard comprising a plurality of keys responsive to user activation togenerate sequences of said encoding symbols, said keyboard comprising aplurality of keys; an output which selectively outputs sequences of saiddecoding symbols in response to said user activation of said keyboard;an ambiguous code which maps said sequences of said encoding symbols tosaid sequences of said decoding symbols, wherein at least one of saidsequences of said encoding symbols is mapped to a plurality of saidsequences of said decoding symbols, said ambiguous code characterized inthat it is strongly touch typable; a plurality ofdecoding-symbol-assigned keys formed by an assignment of said decodingsymbols to said keys, said assignment characterized in that it is noteven-as-possible, given the number of said decoding-symbol-assignedkeys.
 2. An apparatus comprising: encoding symbols; decoding symbols; akeyboard comprising a plurality of keys responsive to user activation togenerate sequences of said encoding symbols, said keyboard comprising aplurality of keys; an output which selectively outputs sequences of saiddecoding symbols in response to said user activation of said keyboard;an ambiguous code which maps said sequences of said encoding symbols tosaid sequences of said decoding symbols, wherein at least one of saidsequences of said encoding symbols is mapped to a plurality of saidsequences of said decoding symbols, said ambiguous code characterized inthat it is maximally touch typable in that at least one of theconditions is true of said ambiguous code, said conditions selected fromi) its lookup error rate is at least of level C, ii) its query errorrate is at least of level B, iii) its effective key number is at least10, given statistics drawn from a representative corpus of a language.3. An apparatus comprising: encoding symbols; decoding symbols; akeyboard comprising a plurality of keys responsive to user activation togenerate sequences of said encoding symbols, said keyboard comprising aplurality of keys; an output sequences of said decoding symbols inresponse to said user activation of said keyboard; an ambiguous codewhich maps said sequences of said encoding symbols to said sequences ofsaid decoding symbols; wherein at least one said sequences of saidencoding symbols is mapped to a plurality of said sequences of saiddecoding symbols, said ambiguous code characterized in that itsubstantially satisfies at least one constraint selected from the groupconsisting of anatomic fidelity, conservation of conventional gestures,conservation of convention, cross-platform compatibility, learnability,and scan time; an assignment of a plurality of said decoding symbols tosaid keys, said assignment characterized in that it is noteven-as-possible.
 4. An apparatus comprising: encoding symbols; decodingsymbols; a keyboard comprising a plurality of keys responsive to useractivation to generate sequences of said encoding symbols, said keyboardcomprising a plurality of keys; an output which selectively outputssequences of said decoding symbols in response to said user activationof said keyboard; an ambiguous code which maps said sequences of saidencoding symbols to said sequences of said decoding symbols, wherein atleast one of said sequences of said encoding symbols is mapped to aplurality of said sequences of said decoding symbols, said ambiguouscode characterized in that it is substantially optimal with respect toat least one of lookup error rate and query error rate; an assignment ofsaid decoding symbols to said keys, said assignment characterized inthat it is not even-as-possible, given the number of said keys to whichsaid decoding symbols have been assigned by said assignment.
 5. Anapparatus comprising: encoding symbols; decoding symbols; a keyboardcomprising a plurality of keys responsive to user activation to generatesequences of said encoding symbols; an output which selectively outputssequences of said decoding symbols in response to said user activationof said keyboard; an ambiguous code which maps said sequences of saidencoding symbols to said sequences of said decoding symbols, wherein atleast one of said sequences of said encoding symbols is mapped to aplurality of said sequences of said decoding symbols, said ambiguouscode characterized in that said sequences of said encoding symbols aremax-2 sequences of length at most two, comprising at least one max-2sequence of length 2; and said sequences of said decoding symbols aremax-1 sequences of length 1 whereby said ambiguous code is a mappingbetween said max-2 sequences of said encoding symbols and subsets ofsaid decoding symbols and whereby input of one of said max-2 sequencesof said encoding symbols explictly selects for ambiguous output one ofsaid subsets of said decoding symbols.
 6. The apparatus of claim 5wherein said keys are laid out spatially and a plurality of saiddecoding symbols are associated with said keys substantially following aconventional order in space.
 7. The apparatus of claim 5 wherein aplurality of said max-2 sequences of said encoding symbols are input inresponse to a substantially simultaneous said user activation whichconsists of activating two of said keys substantially simultaneously inthat activation of a second of said keys occurs within the duration ofactivity of a first of said keys.
 8. The apparatus of claim 5 whereinphysical motions are operative to input said sequences of said encodingsymbols comprising, but not limited to, any motion of body partsselected from the set of arm, hand, fingers, thumb, leg, foot, toes,head, and eye.
 9. The apparatus of claim 5 wherein said decoding symbolsare symbols used to represent a natural language, comprising, but notlimited to, the letters, digits and punctuation marks commonly used towrite said natural language.
 10. The apparatus of claim 16 wherein saiddecoding symbols are explicitly selected so as to optimize at least oneof lookup error rate and query error rate.
 11. The apparatus of claim 5further characterized in that it is strongly touch typable, whereuponsaid ambiguous code is a strongly touch typable ambiguous code.
 12. Theapparatus of claim 11 wherein said strongly touch typable ambiguous codeis a multi-level ambiguous code, said multi-level ambiguous codecharacterized in that it comprises a first-level ambiguous code and asecond-level ambiguous code; wherein a first of said encoding symbols inone of said max-2 sequences of said encoding symbols is drawn from saidfirst-level ambiguous code, and a second of said encoding symbols insaid one of said max-2 sequences of said encoding symbols is drawn fromsaid second-level ambiguous code.
 13. The apparatus of claim 5 furthercharacterized in that it substantially satisfies at least one constraintselected from the set consisting of specified partition structure,anatomic fidelity, conservation of conventional gestures, conservationof convention, cross-platform compatibility, learnability, and scantime.
 14. The apparatus of claim 13 wherein said conservation ofconvention comprises substantial conservation of qwerty order and saidkeys are arranged in at least three rows and one to ten columns, andwherein said decoding symbols comprise letters comprising a through z,and said three rows comprise a top row; a middle row; and a bottom row;said apparatus further comprising an assignment of said letters to saidkeys, so that said keys comprise letter-assigned keys, said letters inorder q, w, e, r, t, y, u, i, o and p are assigned by said assignment toa plurality of said letter-assigned keys in said top row of said threerows, said letters in order a, s, d, f, g, h, j, k, and l are assignedby said assignment to a plurality of said letter-assigned keys in saidmiddle row of said three rows, said letters in order z, x, c, v, b and mare assigned by said assignment to a plurality of said letter-assignedkeys in said bottom row of said three rows, futher characterized in thatthe number of said letter-assigned keys in each of said three rowsmonotonically decreases from said top row to said bottom row, in thatsaid number of said letter-assigned keys in each of said three rowsdecreases or remains constant from said top row to said middle row andfrom said middle row to said bottom row, said assignment satisfying aneven-as-possible partition given said number of said letter-assignedkeys in each of said three rows and wherein said keys are laid out in aformat including as a subpart one of standard numeric keypad format andstandard telephone keypad format with corresponding indicia for digitsso as to substantially satisfy said cross-platform compatibility. 15.The apparatus of claim 14 wherein said ambiguous code is substantiallyoptimal with respect to at least one of lookup error rate and queryerror rate.
 16. The apparatus of claim 5 wherein a plurality of saidsubsets of said decoding symbols contain a single of said decodingsymbols, whereby input of one of said max-2 sequences of said encodingsymbols which is mapped by said ambiguous code to one of said single ofsaid decoding symbols serves to explicitly select for unambiguous outputsaid single of said decoding symbols, whereupon said single of saiddecoding symbols is an element of a plurality of explicitly selectedunambiguous said decoding symbols.
 17. The apparatus of claim 16characterized in that a plurality of said max-2 sequences of saidencoding symbols consist of one element drawn from a plurality ofcombining said encoding symbols, and one element drawn from a pluralityof key-assigned said encoding symbols, any single element of saidplurality of said key-assigned said encoding symbols being designated akey-assigned encoding symbol, wherein said user activation of one ofsaid keys to which one of said key-assigned said encoding symbols hasbeen assigned inputs said key-assigned encoding symbol, and furthercharacterized in that a plurality of said decoding symbols arekey-assigned said decoding symbols, any single element of said pluralityof said key-assigned said decoding symbols being designated akey-assigned decoding symbol, such that when one of said key-assignedsaid encoding symbols is input, an element of a first subset of saidkey-assigned said decoding symbols is output, and when one of saidcombining said encoding symbols is input in combination with one of saidkey-assigned said decoding symbols, then an element of a second subsetof said key-assigned said decoding symbols is output.
 18. The apparatusof claim 17 wherein at least one of the group consisting of said firstsubset and said second subset consists of said explicitly selectedunambiguous said decoding symbols.
 19. The apparatus of claim 17characterized in that said first subset and said second subset compriseletters selected from the set a through z and their accentedcounterparts.
 20. The apparatus of claim 19 characterized in that saidfirst subset comprises said letters selected from the set consisting ofc, e, h, l, n, s, t, x, y.
 21. The apparatus of claim 19 characterizedin that said letters are assigned to said keys following a substantiallyalphabetic order.
 22. The apparatus of claim 21 characterized in thatsaid letters are assigned to said keys following a standard assignmentof letters to a telephone keypad.
 23. The apparatus of claim 16 furthercomprising a display coupled to a processor through appropriateinterfacing circuitry, wherein said processor receives input sequencesof said encoding symbols from said keyboard and manages output ofsequences of said decoding symbols to said display; a memory coupled tosaid processor, wherein said memory comprises disambiguation software,said disambiguation software effective to map said sequences of saidencoding symbols to sequences of said explicitly selected unambiguoussaid decoding symbols; a database of disambiguation rules whichassociate said sequences of said encoding symbols with said sequences ofsaid decoding symbols.
 24. The apparatus of claim 22 wherein said keysare responsive to said user activation mediated by one of the physicalsenses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell and said display isselected from the group consisting of visual, auditory, tactile,gustatory and olfactory displays.
 25. The apparatus of claim where saiddisambiguation software is selected from the set comprising word-based,sequence-based, prefix-based and any combination thereto.
 26. Theapparatus of claim 25 where said disambiguation software is operative toapply a selecting plurality of said disambiguation rules in saiddatabase of disambiguation rules, elements of said selecting pluralityof said disambiguation rules characterized in that said sequences ofsaid decoding symbols in said selecting plurality of said disambiguationrules include at least one of said explicitly selected unambiguous saiddecoding symbols.
 27. The apparatus of claim 26 where elements of saidselecting plurality of said disambiguation rules are such that saidexplicitly selected unambiguous said decoding symbols may occur at thebeginning, interior, or end of said sequences of said decoding symbols.28. An apparatus comprising: encoding symbols; decoding symbols; akeyboard comprising a plurality of keys responsive to user activation togenerate sequences of said encoding symbols; an output which selectivelyoutputs sequences of said decoding symbols in response to said useractivation of said keyboard; an ambiguous code which maps said sequencesof said encoding symbols to said sequences of said decoding symbols,wherein at least one of said sequences of said encoding symbols ismapped to a plurality of said sequences of said decoding symbols; saidambiguous code characterized in that it is strongly touch typable; anassignment of said decoding symbols to said keys; said ambiguous codetogether with said assignment characterized in that they substantiallysatisfy at least one constraint selected from the group consisting ofanatomic fidelity, conservation of conventional gestures, conservationof convention, cross-platform compatibility, learnability, and scantime.
 29. The apparatus of claim 28 further comprising a thumbactuatable input, said thumb actuatable input being effective to input aplurality of unambiguous said decoding symbols formed by an unambigousassociation of a plurality of said encoding symbols with a plurality ofsaid decoding symbols; a palm grip, said palm grip permitting saidapparatus to be slide along a surface by pressure from the palm whilethe hand is in a comfortable position for typing; and a display, saiddisplay being effective to display said plurality of said decodingsymbols as they are input.
 30. The apparatus of claim 28 wherein saidambiguous code is substantially optimal with respect to at least one oflookup error rate and query error rate.
 31. The apparatus of claim 28wherein said keys are laid out in one of a standard numeric keypadformat and standard telephone keypad format whereby said conservation ofconvention is substantially satisfied.
 32. The apparatus of claim 28further characterized in that a plurality of said keys aredecoding-symbol-assigned keys, such the number of saiddecoding-symbol-assigned keys is approximately half of the number ofsaid decoding symbols, and not less than half of the number of saiddecoding symbols.
 33. The apparatus of claim 32 further characterized inthat said plurality of said decoding symbols consists of the letters athrough z.
 34. The apparatus of claim 28 wherein said conservation ofconvention comprises substantial conservation of qwerty order and saidkeys are arranged in at least three rows and one to ten columns, andwherein said decoding symbols comprise letters comprising a through z,and said three rows comprise a top row; a middle row; and a bottom row;said apparatus further comprising an assignment of said letters to saidkeys, so that said keys comprise letter-assigned keys, said letters inorder q, w, e, r, t, y, u, i, o and p are assigned by said assignment toa plurality of said letter-assigned keys in said top row of said threerows, said letters in order a, s, d, f, g, h, j, k, and l are assignedby said assignment to a plurality of said letter-assigned keys in saidmiddle row of said three rows, said letters in order z, x, c, v, b and mare assigned by said assignment to a plurality of said letter-assignedkeys in said bottom row of said three rows, futher characterized in thatthe number of said letter-assigned keys in each of said three rowsmonotonically decreases from said top row to said bottom row, in thatsaid number of said letter-assigned keys in each of said three rowsdecreases or remains constant from said top row to said middle row andfrom said middle row to said bottom row, said assignment satisfying aneven-as-possible partition given said number of said letter-assignedkeys in each of said three rows and wherein said keys are laid out in aformat including as a subpart one of standard numeric keypad format andstandard telephone keypad format with corresponding indicia for digitsso as to substantially satisfy said cross-platform compatibility. 35.The apparatus of claim 34 wherein said ambiguous code is substantiallyoptimal with respect to at least one of lookup error rate and queryerror rate.
 36. The apparatus of claim 28 characterized in that saidassignment of said decoding symbols to said keys is partitioned acrosssaid keys according to a specified partition structure.
 37. Theapparatus of claim 36 wherein said specified partition structure is noteven-as-possible.
 38. The apparatus of claim 36 characterized in thatsaid specified partition structure is an even-as-possible partitiongiven the number of said keys to which said decoding symbols areassigned by said assignment of said decoding symbols to said keys. 39.The apparatus of claim 28 wherein said conservation of conventioncomprises substantial conservation of at least one of alphabetic orderand qwerty order in said assignment of said decoding symbols to saidkeys.
 40. The apparatus of claim 39 wherein said conservation ofconvention comprises substantial conservation of said qwerty order andsaid keys are arranged in at least three rows and one to ten columns.41. The apparatus of claim 40 wherein said decoding symbols compriseletters comprising a through z, and said three rows comprise a top row,a middle row, and a bottom row, and said keys comprise letter-assignedkeys, said letters in order q, w, e, r, t, y, u, i, o and p are assignedby said assignment to a plurality of said letter-assigned keys in saidtop row of said three rows, said letters in order a, s, d, f, g, h, j,k, and l are assigned by said assignment to a plurality of saidletter-assigned keys in said middle row of said three rows, said lettersin order z, x, c, v, b, and m are assigned by said assignment to aplurality of said letter-assigned keys in said bottom row of said threerows.
 42. The apparatus of claim 41 wherein the number of saidletter-assigned keys in each of said three rows monotonically decreasesfrom said top row to said bottom row, in that said number of saidletter-assigned keys in each of said three rows decreases or remainsconstant from said top row to said middle row and from said middle rowto said bottom row.
 43. An ambiguous keyboard disambiguating system fora natural language, comprising: a) encoding symbols and decodingsymbols; b) an ambiguous keyboard having at three rows of keys and oneto ten columns of keys, both of said three rows and one to ten columnshaving indicia that denote one or more letters assigned to one or morekeys, wherein said one or more letters are used to write common words insaid natural language, wherein: each of said one or more keyscorresponds to one of said encoding symbols; and each of said one ormore letters corresponds to one of said decoding symbols, the totalnumber of said keys having at least one letter assigned to them beingless than the number of said one or more letters in an alphabet used toform words in said natural language such that at least one key of saidkeys must have more than one letter of said alphabet assigned to it; c)said assignment of respective said one or more letters assigned torespective said keys permitting a partial conservation layout of saidindicia in that in said partial conservation layout at least a ratio of18/26 of said indicia are at or adjacent to their respective orderedpositions in a letter indicia layout of a conventional typewriterkeyboard for said natural language, while respecting said assignment,where said ordered positions are ordered in a conventional presentationorder for said conventional typewriter keyboard; wherein saidconventional typewriter keyboard layout is a non-alphabetic order forsaid natural language, wherein said non-alphabetic order includes atleast one letter assigned to one or more keys of said ambiguous keyboardviolating an alphabetic order for said natural language; wherein saidambiguous keyboard has: 1) a same set of letters, assigned to at leastone row or one column of said ambiguous keyboard as are assigned to acorresponding row in a conventional typewriter keyboard; 2) wherein anorder of reading of said same set of letters on at least one row or atleast one column of said ambiguous keyboard admits an order of readingof said same set of letters on at least one corresponding row or onecorresponding column of said conventional typewriter keyboard, whereinsaid admittance comprises: i) an order of reading of keys of said atleast one row or said at least one column of said ambiguous keyboardthat is in a same order as a reading of keys of said at least one row orsaid at least one column of said conventional typewriter keyboard, ii)wherein said ambiguous keyboard could be relabeled with said letterindicia presented in the same order along each row as the correspondingindicia on a corresponding row of said conventional typewriter, withoutrepetition and without violating said assignment of said letters to saidkeys; d) an output which selectively outputs sequences of said decodingsymbols in response to user activation of said ambiguous keyboard; e) anambiguous code which maps a sequence of said encoding symbols to one ormore sequences of said decoding symbols; f) wherein at least one of saidsequences of the encoding symbols is mapped to a plurality of saidsequences of said decoding symbols.
 44. The ambiguous keyboard of claim43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard has a strongly touch typableproperty in: 1) having fixed symbol assignments, 2) being based on anambiguous code, and yet 3) such that in a normal mode of operation, atouch typist can use the typable device to produce text at an acceptablelevel of accuracy.
 45. The system of claim 44, wherein said stronglytouch typable property is measured relative to a corpus containing atleast 10 million words drawn at random from a general-interest newspaperin said natural language.
 46. The system of claim 44, wherein saidlookup rate error is equal to or greater than 50/29 times a lookup errorrate for a standard telephone keypad for said natural language whereboth said lookup error rate and said lookup error rate for said standardtelephone keypad are measured on a same given corpus of textrepresentative of said natural language.
 47. The system of claim 44,wherein said strongly touch-typable property is equal to or greater thanlevel “A”, in that it has an acceptable level of accuracy for a userwho, 1) accepts a query error rate of one query every 5 words onaverage, and; 2) accepts a lookup error rate of one error every 50 wordson average.
 48. The system of claim 44, wherein said stronglytouch-typable property is equal to or greater than level “B” in that ithas an acceptable level of accuracy for a user who, 1) accepts a queryerror rate of one query every 10 words on average, and 2) accepts alookup error rate of one error every 100 words on average.
 49. Thesystem of claim 44, wherein said strongly touch-typable property isequal to or greater than level “C” for a user who, 1) accepts a queryevery 20 words on average, and 2) accepts a lookup error every 200 wordson average.
 50. The ambiguous keyboard of claim 44, which has aneffective key number greater than the effective key number correspondingto the point (50,5) in the (lookup error rate, query error rate) planewhere lookup error rate and query error rate are normalized such thatthe standard ambiguous code for said natural language corresponds to thepoint (29, 2.2) in said (lookup error rate, query error rate) plane, andsaid lookup error rate and said query error rate are measured relativeto a text corpus representative of said natural language.
 51. The systemof claim 43, wherein a count of letter-assigned said keys on each ofsaid rows decreases monotonically from top to bottom said rows.
 52. Thesystem of claim 43, wherein said assignment of letters to said keys isan even as possible assignment on at least one of said rows, given thenumber of letter-assigned keys in said at least one row and the numberof said letters assigned to said letter-assigned keys in said at leastone row.
 53. The system of claim 43, wherein said assignment is notsubstantially optimal, because in a count of four random trials it ismore likely than not to find an other assignment with better values oflookup error rate where said lookup error rate is measured relative to asame corpus representative of said natural language for both saidassignment and said other assignment.
 54. The system of claim 43,wherein said assignment of said letters to said keys is not an even aspossible assignment, given the total number of letter-assigned said keysof said ambiguous keyboard.
 55. The system of claim 43, wherein saidassignment of said letters to said keys is a not even as possibleassignment on at least one of said rows, given the number ofletter-assigned said keys in said at least one row and the total numberof said letters assigned to said letter-assigned keys in said at leastone row.
 56. The system of claim 43, wherein said ambiguous keyboardwill be substantially optimal with respect to a property if it is amongthe best codes with respect to that property given other constraintsimposed on said ambiguous keyboard.
 57. The system of claim 56, whereinsaid property is a lookup error rate.
 58. The system of claim 56,wherein said property is a query error rate.
 59. The system of claim 43,wherein said ambiguous keyboard is substantially optimal given aconstraint of even as possible for letter assignments for a given row,given that said conventional typewriter keyboard is a Qwertyconventional typewriter keyboard.
 60. The system of claim 56, whereinsaid constraint is a lookup error rate.
 61. The system of claim 56,wherein said constraint is a query error rate.
 62. The system of claim56, wherein substantially optimality includes being within 5% of anabsolute best of said lookup error rate, given specified constraints.63. The system of claim 56, wherein said constraint is a lookup errorrate.
 64. The system of claim 56, wherein said constraint is a queryerror rate.
 65. The system of claim 43, wherein said assignment exceedsa threshold of “level A” touch typability of 1.724 in lookup error rate,when measured in units of the lookup error rate of the standardambiguous code for said natural language for a given corpusrepresentative of said natural language.
 66. The system of claim 43,wherein said assignment exceeds a threshold of “level A” touchtypability of 2.27 in query error rate, when measured in units of queryerror rate of the standard ambiguous code for said natural language fora given corpus representative of said natural language.
 67. The systemof claim 65, wherein said conventional typewriter keyboard is a qwertyconventional typewriter keyboard.
 68. The system of claim 65, whereinsaid ambiguous keyboard letter assignments are as even as possible on atleast one row.
 69. The system of claim 66, wherein said ambiguouskeyboard has 5 columns of letter-assigned keys in a top of said threerows and 5 columns of letter-assigned keys in a middle of said threerows.
 70. The system of claim 66, wherein said conventional typewriterkeyboard is a Qwerty conventional typewriter keyboard.
 71. The system ofclaim 70, wherein said assignment is an even as possible letterassignment for a selected row.
 72. The system of claim 71, wherein saidconventional typewriter keyboard is a qwerty conventional typewriterkeyboard and said assignment is even as possible.
 73. The system ofclaim 72, wherein said system is cross platform compatible, as it cantransition between a telephone keyboard and a typewriter keyboard. 74.The system of claim 73, wherein the number of said letters is as near aspossible to being twice the number of letter-assigned keys for saidambiguous keyboard, given qwerty letter-to-row assignments.
 75. Thesystem of claim 43, wherein said ambiguous code is a multi-level codewherein a first sequence of encoding symbols serves to select a firstsubset of decoding symbols, a second sequence of encoding symbols servesto select a second subset of decoding symbols.
 76. The system of claim43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard has a first set of lettersqwertyuiop on a first row of said three rows, a second set of lettersasdfghjkl on a second row of said three rows, and a third set of letterszxcvbnm on a third row of said three rows.
 77. The system of claim 43,wherein said ambiguous keyboard includes said set of letters in anygiven order: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
 78. The system of claim 43,wherein a number letter-assigned said keys has a cardinality of anearest whole number to half of a cardinality of said letters, givenqwerty letter-to-row assignments, wherein said assignment is as even aspossible letter assignment for a selected row.
 79. The system of claim78, wherein said letters are a-z of the English alphabet.
 80. The systemof claim 43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard is foldable.
 81. The systemof claim 43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard is included in a steeringwheel.
 82. The system of claim 43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard isincorporated into a computer mouse.
 83. The system of claim 43, whereinsaid conventional order is selected from a group that includes at leastone of: a qwerty order; and an azerty order.
 84. The system of claim 43,where said conventional typewriter keyboard for said natural language isa qwerty conventional typewriter keyboard.
 85. The system of claim 43,wherein said conventional typewriter keyboard for said natural languageis a close variant to a qwerty conventional typewriter keyboard.
 86. Thesystem of claim 43, wherein a “presentation order” is a direction inwhich that letters are read in it its natural language; and wherein said“reading order” is a directional pattern in which words areconventionally read in said natural language, along lines and from lineto line.
 87. The system of claim 86, wherein said: assignment permits alayout of indicia in which said indicia may be read in a reading orderfor said natural language in the same way as said indicia are read onsaid conventional typewriter keyboard for said natural language.
 88. Thesystem of claim 43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard has a strongly touchtypable property in: a) having fixed symbol assignments, b) based on anambiguous code, and yet c) such that in a normal mode of operation, atouch typist can use the typable device to produce text at an acceptablelevel of accuracy, wherein a corpus of words used by which said stronglytouch typable is measured is with at least 10 million words of a generalpurpose newspaper, wherein said look up rate error is equal to orgreater than 50/29 times the lookup error rate of the standard ambiguouscode for said natural language wherein said strongly touch-typableproperty is equal to or greater than level “A”, in that a user, a)accepts a query error rate of one query every 5 words on average, and;b) accepts a lookup error rate of one lookup error every 50 words onaverage.
 89. The system of claim 43, wherein said ambiguous keyboard hasa first set of letters qwertyuiop on a first row of said three rows, asecond set of said letters asdfghjkl on a second row of said three rows,and a third set of said letters zxcvbnm on a third row of said threerows, wherein the number of said letter-assigned said keys is no lessthan half of the number of said letters.
 90. The system of claim 89, inwhich said assignment is even as possible.
 91. The system of claim 89,wherein the number of letter-assigned said keys is as close as possibleto half the number of said letters.
 92. The ambiguous keyboard of claim91, wherein said ambiguous keyboard has a strongly touch typableproperty in: 1) having fixed symbol assignments, 2) being based on anambiguous code, and yet 3) such that in a normal mode of operation, atouch typist can use the typable device to produce text at an acceptablelevel of accuracy.
 93. The system of claim 91, wherein said stronglytouch typable property is measured relative to a corpus containing atleast 10 million words drawn at random from a general-interest newspaperin said natural language.
 94. The system of claim 91, wherein saidlookup rate error is equal to or greater than 50/29 times a lookup errorrate for a standard telephone keypad for said natural language whereboth said lookup error rate and said lookup for a standard telephonekeypad are measured on a same given corpus of text representative ofsaid natural language.
 95. The system of claim 91, wherein said stronglytouch-typable property is equal to or greater than level “A”, in that ithas an acceptable level of accuracy for a user who, 1) accepts a queryerror rate of one query every 5 words on average, and; 2) accepts alookup error rate of one error every 50 words on average.
 96. The systemof claim 91, wherein said strongly touch-typable property is equal to orgreater than level “B” in that it has an acceptable level of accuracyfor a user who, 1) accepts a query error rate of one query every 10words on average, and 2) accepts a lookup error rate of one error every100 words on average.
 97. The system of claim 91, wherein said stronglytouch-typable property is equal to or greater than level “C” for a userwho, 1) accepts a query every 20 words on average, and 2) accepts alookup error every 200 words on average.
 98. The ambiguous keyboard ofclaim 91, which has an effective key number greater than the effectivekey number corresponding to the point (50,5) in the (lookup error rate,query error rate) where lookup error rate and query error rate arenormalized such that the standard ambiguous code for said naturallanguage corresponds to the point (29, 2.2) in said (lookup error rate,query error rate) plane, and said lookup error rate and said query errorrate are measured relative to a text corpus representative of saidnatural language.
 99. The system of claim 91, wherein a count ofletter-assigned said keys on each of said rows decreases monotonicallyfrom top to bottom said rows.
 100. The system of claim 99, wherein saidassignment of letters to said keys is an even as possible assignment onat least one of said rows, given the number of letter-assigned keys insaid at least one row and the number of said letters assigned to saidletter-assigned keys in said at least one row.
 101. The system of claim91, wherein said assignment is not substantially optimal, because in acount of four random trials it is more likely than not to find an otherassignment with better values of lookup error rate where said lookuperror rate is measured relative to a same corpus representative of saidnatural language for both said assignment and said other assignment.102. The system of claim 101, wherein said assignment of said letters tosaid keys is not an even as possible assignment, given the total numberof letter-assigned said keys of said ambiguous keyboard.
 103. The systemof claim 43, wherein no said key has more than two said letters assignedto it.
 104. The system of claim 103, further comprising a first mode anda second mode, wherein said letters are said decoding symbols in saidfirst mode, and digits are said decoding symbols in said second mode.105. The system of claim 104, where said digits correspond to indiciaarranged such that said second mode can function as a conventionaltelephone.
 106. The system of claim 43, where said ambiguous keyboard issubstantially optimal given a constraint of even as possible for letterassignments for letter-assigned keys and given a constraint that saidconventional typewriter keyboard is a qwerty conventional typewriterkeyboard.
 107. An ambiguous keyboard disambiguating system for a naturallanguage comprising: a) encoding and decoding symbols; b) an ambiguouskeyboard having at least three rows of keys and four to ten columns ofkeys, both of said three rows and four to ten columns having indiciathat denote one or more letters assigned to one or more keys, whereinsaid one or more letters are used to write common words in said naturallanguage, wherein: each of said one or more keys corresponds to one ofsaid encoding symbols; and each of said one or more letters correspondsto one of said decoding symbols, the total number of said keys having atleast one letter assigned to them being less than the number of said oneor more letters in an alphabet used to form words in said naturallanguage such that at least one key of said keys must have more than oneletter of said alphabet assigned to it; wherein said ambiguous keyboardcould be relabeled with said letter indicia presented in continuousalphabetic order along each row without repetition and without violatingsaid assignment of said letters to said keys; wherein said indicia maybe presented in continuous alphabetic order along each row withoutviolating said assignment of said letters to said keys; d) an outputwhich selectively outputs sequences of said decoding symbols in responseto user activation of said ambiguous keyboard; e) an ambiguous codewhich maps a sequence of said encoding symbols to one or more sequencesof decoded symbols; f) at least one of said sequences of the encodingsymbols is mapped to a plurality of said sequences of said decodingsymbols.
 108. The system of claim 107, wherein said keyboard has astrongly touch typable property in: 1) having fixed symbol assignments,2) being based on an ambiguous code, and yet 3) such that in a normalmode of operation, a touch typist can use the typable device to producetext at an acceptable level of accuracy.
 109. The system of claim 108,wherein said strongly touch typable property is measured relative to acorpus containing at least 10 million words drawn at random from ageneral-interest newspaper in said natural language.
 110. The system ofclaim 107, wherein a count of letter-assigned said keys on each of saidrows decreases monotonically from top to bottom said rows.
 111. Thesystem of claim 107, wherein said assignment of said letters to saidkeys is not an even as possible assignment, given the total number ofletter-assigned said keys of said ambiguous keyboard.
 112. The system ofclaim 107, wherein said assignment of said letters to said keys is a noteven as possible assignment on at least one of said rows, given thenumber of letter-assigned said keys in said at least one row and thetotal number of said letters assigned to said letter-assigned keys insaid at least one row.
 113. The system of claim 107, wherein saidambiguous code is a multi-level code wherein a first sequence ofencoding symbols serves to select a first subset of decoding symbols, asecond sequence of encoding symbols serves to select a second subset ofdecoding symbols.
 114. The system of claim 107, wherein said ambiguouskeyboard is foldable.
 115. The system of claim 107, wherein saidambiguous keyboard is included in a steering wheel.
 116. The system ofclaim 107, wherein said ambiguous keyboard is incorporated into acomputer mouse.
 117. The system of claim 107, wherein a “presentationorder” is a direction in which that letters are read in it its naturallanguage; and wherein said “reading order” is a directional pattern inwhich words are conventionally read in said natural language, alonglines and from line to line.
 118. The system of 107, wherein no said keyhas more than two said letters assigned to it.
 119. The system of claim107, further comprising a first mode and a second mode, wherein saidletters are decoding systems in said first mode, and digits are decodingsymbols in said second mode.
 120. The system of claim 119, where saiddigits correspond to indicia arranged such that said second mode canfunction as a conventional telephone.